Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has applied for a permit, and proposes to erect an outdoor advertising sign on the east side of Interstate 110, 1.5 miles north of Fairfield Drive in Escambia County, Florida. This sign would face east and west, with the copy on the face which is the subject of this proceeding facing west. Interstate 110 is a north-south highway at the point where the Petitioner's sign is proposed to be erected. The Department of Transportation has issued two permits to Lamar Advertising for an outdoor advertising sign located on the east side of I-110, approximately 320 feet north of the site of the Petitioner's proposed sign. These Lamar Advertising permits are for the north face and the south face of the Lamar sign which can be read by traffic traveling both north and south on I-110. Although the Petitioner's proposed sign would face west, the copy would be visible to northbound traffic on I-110 and to some extent to southbound traffic there. The Petitioner's sign as proposed could be seen by the same traffic as can see the Lamar Advertising sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of A. Barry Shuck, d/b/a Designs Custom Signs, for a permit to erect an outdoor advertising sign on Interstate 110, 1.5 miles north of Fairfield Drive in Escambia County, Florida, be DENIED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 16th 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 132301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. A. Barry Shuck Designs Custom Signs 102 Pine Court Pace, Florida 32570 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg. M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the easterly face of a V-shaped, two-faced sign located on Interstate-95 at the junction with the west bound exit ramp of State Road 836 has a proper permit from the Department of Transportation and whether that sign face violates spacing rules on interstate highways.
Findings Of Fact Hancock Advertising Agency owns a sign which is located immediately adjacent to Interstate-95 in the City of Miami at the point where State Road 836 and Interstate-95 meet. The structure and its advertising message is an outdoor advertising sign as defined in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The sign is visible from the main travelled way of Interstate-95. Interstate-95 is part of the interstate highway system as defined in Section 479.01(7), Florida Statutes. The structure is located approximately 10 to 12 feet inside the Department of Transportation's right-of-way fence. No State outdoor advertising permit has been issued for the sign face which is the subject of this litigation. The Hancock Advertising sign is only about 443 feet from the nearest legally permitted sign. Hancock Advertising received proper notice from the Department of Transportation of the outdoor advertising violations by mail and by posting a notice of violation on the sign.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the easterly face of the sign structure which is visible from the main traveled way of Interstate-95 be removed pursuant to Section 479.105(1), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 18th day of December, 1987. FILINGS IN HANCOCK Petitioner's Covered in Finding of Fact 5. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Not a Finding of Fact. Respondent's All facts contained in the Respondent's statement of facts have been adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Charles C. Papy, III, Esquire PAPY, POOLE, WEISSENBORN & PAPY 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 502 Coral Gables, Florida 33114 Raye N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, Mail Station 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns the sign located on the west side of and adjacent to U.S. Highway 331, approximately 5.5 miles north of the intersection of U.S. Highway 331 and U.S. Highway 90 in Walton County, Florida. The sign advertises a motel owned by Petitioner. The sign is important to the motel's business. The sign is required to have an outdoor advertising sign permit. U.S. Highway 331 is a Federal Aid Primary Highway and was a Federal Aid Primary Highway prior to the sign's erection. Walton County is operating under a duly adopted comprehensive plan. However, the State of Florida has not fully approved such plan and Walton County has not yet entered into a compliance agreement with the State in regards to its comprehensive plan. Pursuant to its comprehensive plan, Walton County utilizes a method of zoning known as "performance zoning", as opposed to the traditional "euclidian zoning". Performance zoning has specific regulations and restrictions for each type of use, and each type of use has to meet certain criteria. In essence, performance zoning allows mixed uses of certain zones within the county. Different areas of the county have different requirements regarding the development of such use in order to safeguard the integrity of the zoning plan. The specific area where the sign is located allows for commercial, industrial and residential use and is permitted by the zoning scheme of Walton County. In a general sense, residential as well as commercial and industrial use is allowed in all of the areas of Walton County north of U.S. Highway 90. This area constitutes approximately one-half of the county. However, zones contained within the areas of Walton County north of U.S. Highway 90 may differ in the circumstances and criteria of the zoning plan under which such uses would be permitted. Even though Walton County was comprehensively zoned, Respondent's previous administration treated Walton County as if it did not have zoning. Therefore, Respondent would have previously permitted the sign in question. However Respondent changed its treatment of Walton County because it had been cited by the Federal Highway Administration for its lax interpretation of zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas within the counties. The Federal Highway Administration threatened to withdraw federal highway monies if the Department did not begin to follow the language in its statutes and rules defining zoned and unzoned areas. The clear language of the Respondent's statutes and rules governing the permitting of outdoor advertising signs, as well as the threatened action of the Federal Highway Administration demonstrate the reasonableness of and the factual basis for the Department's change in its interpretation of zoned and unzoned areas within a county. In this case, it is clear that the sign is located in a zoned area and not in an unzoned area. The area in which the sign is located is not zoned commercial or industrial. The area is zoned for mixed use according to the performance zoning utilized by Walton County. Since the sign is not in an area zoned commercial or industrial, the sign is not permittable under Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for a permit to maintain a sign located on the west side of U.S. Highway 331, approximately 5.5 miles north of the intersection of U.S. Highway 331 and U.S. Highway 90 in Walton County, Florida, be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 12 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order were not shown by the evidence. The fact contained in paragraph 11 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order are immaterial. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 13 and 14 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended order are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: William K. Jennings 119 E. Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
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
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has applied for a permit, and proposes to erect an outdoor advertising sign on the north side of SR 424A, 650 feet east of I-4, in Orange County, Florida. State Road 424A is also known as Fairbanks Avenue. This location is within 660 feet of Interstate 4, and the proposed sign would be visible to traffic on I-4. The Department of Transportation has issued a permit to Peterson Outdoor Advertising for an outdoor advertising sign located approximately 375 feet from the Petitioner's proposed signsite on the same side of I-4, and a sign has been erected by Peterson Outdoor Advertising at this point.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Cory Outdoor Advertising, Inc., for a permit to erect an outdoor advertising sign on the north side of SR 424A, 650 feet east of I-4, in Orange County, Florida, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 28th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearing The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary E. Massey, Esquire 112 West Citrus Street Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714-2579 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon 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.
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
Findings Of Fact Jefferson County has established comprehensive zoning for the county pursuant to its Development Code which became effective on April 1, 1983. This code provides a system of land use regulation which includes comprehensive zoning of commercial uses by a category called "Site Particularly Suited for Economic Activity." The commercial zone allows for one of three types of employment centers, namely, Type 1-5, Type 6-20, and Type 21, which are commercial enterprises or firms distinguished by the number of employees in a building or group of buildings at a particular location. Type 6-20 and Type 21 employment centers are only allowed in a "Site Particularly Suited for Economic Activity." Section 1 of Article 25 of this code allows outdoor advertising visible from an arterial highway to be located in one of the "Sites Particularly Suited for Economic Activity" as defined in Article 26. Section 2 of Article 26 of the code states that Economic Activity refers to Type 6-20 and Type 21 employment centers. The Petitioner, by its application for outdoor advertising permits, seeks to erect signs on the south side of I-10, .6 mile west of State Road 59 in Jefferson County, facing east and west. This site is in a Type 1-5 employment center, not a Type 6-20 or a Type 21 employment center, as required by Article 26 of the code. This site is also within 660 feet of the right-of-way of Interstate 10. It is without commercial activity, and is vacant land at the present time. On May 7, 1984, the Petitioner made an application to the Jefferson County Planning Commission for a change of land use, or variance, and listed as its purpose "Outdoor Advertising." On July 12, 1984, the Jefferson County Planning Commission approved the variance as applied for on the property which is the subject of this proceeding. Thereafter, on September 11, 1984, the Petitioner applied with the Department of Transportation for outdoor advertising permits at the subject location. This application was denied by the Department on September 13, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Seminole Inns, Inc., for permits to erect outdoor advertising signs on the south side of Interstate 10, .6 mile west of State Road 59 in Jefferson County, Florida, facing east and west, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 22nd day of March, 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 22nd day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell C. Madigan, Esquire David D. Eastman, Esquire P. O. Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact U.S. 1 is a federal-aid primary highway and, in the vicinity of University Boulevard, is a divided highway, with parkway between north-and- southbound lanes. University Boulevard (SR 109) is not a federal-aid primary highway. Petitioner holds a lease on the property on which the proposed sign is to be erected and, in fact, already has a structure on this site and a permit for a north-facing sign on this structure. The proposed sign meets all DOT requirements except spacing. The structure on which the proposed sign is to be displayed is located on the east side of U.S. 1, 125 feet north of the intersection with University Boulevard. Lamar Dean Outdoor Advertising Company was issued a permit for a 14 by 48 foot sign along the east side of University Boulevard, 150 feet south of the intersection with U.S. 1. This sign faces west. That application for permit (Exhibit 8) shows the type highway to be U.S. 1, a federal-aid primary highway. A sign located on University Boulevard in Jacksonville which was not visible from a federal-aid primary highway would not require a DOT permit. This Lamar structure, which carries a Jack Bush-Toyota South copy, can easily be seen by persons in vehicles travelling on U.S. 1 and it is on the same side of U.S. 1 and within 500 feet of Petitioner's proposed sign. The Department of Transportation's (DOT) inspectors maintain inventories of all permitted signs. The criteria used by all DOT sign inspectors is to log any sign that can be seen and read from the primary highway. Actually, the Jack Bush sign can be seen by both north-and-southbound traffic on U.S. 1 when in the vicinity of University Boulevard but the northbound traffic passes closer to the sign. It is therefore carried by DOT as a south-facing sign.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's applications to erect a steel monopole which would support a two- sided outdoor advertising sign to be located west of Interstate Highway 95 (I-95), 2,244 feet north of I-95's intersection with Indrio Road, St. Lucie County, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters Petitioner POZ Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (POZ), is a corporation engaged in the business of erecting and maintaining outdoor advertising signs. The principals of POZ are Richard Pozniak and his wife, Barbara. Respondent, Department of Transportation (Department) is a state agency charged with, inter alia, the responsibility to regulate outdoor advertising, under the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code. On February 17, 1997, POZ applied with the Department for permits to erect a monopole sign which would support a two- sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 2,244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road, St. Lucie County, Florida. The Department reviewed the applications, and on February 20, 1997, gave notice to POZ that the applications were denied because the "[s]ite is within 500 feet of a restricted interchange or intersection at grade (S. #14-10.006(1)(b)5, FAC)." POZ filed a timely request for a formal hearing to challenge the Department's decision, and these proceedings duly followed. Matters at issue POZ did not contend, and indeed offered no proof at hearing to demonstrate, that the proposed site was not, as found by the Department, within 500 feet of a restricted interchange or intersection at grade, as proscribed by Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code.2 Rather, as noted in the preliminary statement, POZ contends the Department should be precluded from applying the Rule's spacing provisions as a basis for denial of the requested permits based on a theory of estoppel or a theory of inconsistent application of the Rule's spacing requirements. POZ's estoppel theory To accept POZ's estoppel theory, one must accept, as offered, Mr. Pozniak's version of events which he avers transpired in 1990, when he conducted his outdoor advertising business through AdCon Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (AdCon).3 According to Mr. Pozniak, in 1990 he met with Vana Kinchen, then a sign inspector with the Department, to establish the proper location of a billboard that AdCon proposed to permit. Again, according to Mr. Pozniak, Ms. Kinchen helped him measure the site, and identified the same location at issue in this proceeding (2244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road) as an appropriate placement for a billboard. Following Ms. Kinchen's advice as to location, Mr. Pozniak avers that he applied for permits on behalf of AdCon to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located at the exact same site that is at issue in this proceeding. Those applications, according to Mr. Pozniak, were approved and Department tags issued; however, the sign was not erected within 270 days after the permit issued, as required by Section 479.05(3)(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and the permits became void. Having carefully considered the proof in this case, it must be concluded that Mr. Pozniak's version of the events surrounding AdCon's permitting activities in 1990 is less than credible. Rather, the persuasive proof demonstrates that AdCon's application for permits to erect a billboard at the site at issue in this proceeding were denied and it is most unlikely that Ms. Kinchen ever advised Mr. Pozniak that such site was a proper location for a billboard. Regarding AdCon's permitting activities in 1990, the proof demonstrates that on April 6, 1990, AdCon filed applications (inexplicably dated May 6, 1990) with the Department to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 3050 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road. Consistent with the requirement of Section 479.04(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the applications included a separate statement from the local government that the proposed signs complied with local government requirements. Those applications were approved and, on May 3, 1990, the Department's tag numbers BB-457-35 (for the north facing sign) and BB-458-35 (for the south facing sign) were issued. Subsequently, on November 9, 1990, AdCo filed applications dated November 7, 1990, with the Department to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 2,244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road (the location at issue in this case). Those applications were rejected by the Department on November 15, 1990, because they violated the spacing requirements of Section 479.07(9)(a)1, Florida Statutes, which prohibits the issuance of a permit unless the sign is located at least 1,500 feet from any other sign on the same side of an interstate highway. Notably, as the Department observed at that time, those applications conflicted with the previously approved applications of AdCon for the site located at 3,050 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road, and the permittee still had until January 28, 1991, to erect those signs. The applications were also rejected by the Department because they failed to include a statement from local government as required by Section 479.04(3)(b), Florida Statutes, that the proposed signs complied with local government requirements. Rather, what AdCon submitted was a copy of the local government approval it had secured for the location permitted by the Department on May 3, 1990. That documentation did not, as AdCon knew or should have known, meet the requirements for the new location. Clearly, the Department did not previously permit the site at issue in this case, and it is most unlikely that Ms. Kinchen ever affirmatively advised Mr. Pozniak as to the suitability of the site. In so concluding, Mr. Pozniak's testimony, as well as Petitioner's Exhibit 3 (what purports to be copies of applications, dated November 7, 1990, by AdCon for the site at issue in this proceeding, and purportedly approved by the Department) have been carefully considered. However, when compared with the other proof of record it must be concluded that Petitioner's Exhibit 3 is a fabrication,4 and that Mr. Pozniak's testimony on the subject is not credible or worthy of belief. POZ's theory of inconsistency Mr. Pozniak offered testimony at hearing concerning two outdoor advertising signs at the intersection of I-95 and State Road 60 which he opined did not conform with the Department's spacing requirements and, therefore, represent inconsistent application of the District's rule. The persuasive proof is, however, to the contrary. The first sign, located within 500 feet of the interchange, was in existence when the Department's "ramp rule" regarding spacing requirements became effective and, accordingly, its presence was grandfathered. However, at some time following the enactment of the ramp rule, the owner replaced the sign. At that time, the sign became nonconforming and the Department, as soon as it became aware of the nonconformity, commenced an action to secure the sign's removal. The other sign alluded to by Mr. Pozniak, and identified in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1, is owned by Division Street, Inc., and, contrary to Mr. Pozniak's testimony, that sign complies with the Department's spacing requirements and was properly permitted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the subject applications for outdoor advertising sign permits. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997.
