Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed optician in the State of Florida, holding license number DO-0001378. The last known address of the Respondent is 20/20 Opticians, Inc., of 6201 S.W. 70th Street, South Miami, Florida. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was president of 20/20 Opticians, Inc. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida, charged with regulating the practice of opticianry, including regulation of practice standards, including standards of advertising. The Petitioner, through Exhibit One and the testimony of Jim Foreman of Southern Bell, established that the Respondent took out the subject ad advertising the "buy one - get one free" arrangement for obtaining glasses from his firm and Petitioner established that the Respondent signed the order or invoice for purchase of the ad. This ad had been taken out previously and then renewed in substantially the same format with merely the picture of the Respondent deleted. The ad, with the subject advertisement, was renewed on December 17, 1979. Maria Osuna, an investigator for the department went to 20/20 Opticians, Inc. in July of 1981. She conferred there with Lewis Ramirez, an employee of the Respondent, regarding the possibility of her obtaining a free pair of eyeglasses after purchasing a pair. That employee said that the ad was not honored any longer. She conferred with the office manager of the Respondent's firm who knew of the ad, but refused to honor it. Allen Daniel Kirtis was hired by the Respondent in March of 1981. The Respondent told him to give customers second pairs of eyeglasses (with their old frames) for $9.95 and not to honor the subject ad, but rather to charge them $9.95 for a second pair or 50 percent of retail price, which ever was higher. He was specifically instructed by the Respondent not to honor the ad during the time when the ad was running in the yellow pages. Mr. Kirtis established that the subject ad was current and ran as a current advertisement in the phone directory at least until November, 1981. In response to the evidence and testimony adduced by Petitioner, the Respondent produced nothing and failed to appear at the hearing.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty as charged and a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner suspending his license for one (1) year. DONE and ENTERED this 30th of March, 1983, 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 30th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Carter, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lionel Barnet, Esquire 13842 SW 56th Street Miami, Florida 33183 Fred Varn, Executive Director Board of Opticianry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Should certain outdoor advertising signs owned by Respondent, Lamar East Florida (Lamar) be removed as a result of notices of violations brought by Petitioner, Department of Transportation (the Department) against Lamar?
Findings Of Fact Lamar is licensed pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, to conduct the business of outdoor advertising. The Department regulates the outdoor advertising business in accordance with that law. In 1964, outdoor advertising signs that are the subject of the proceeding were constructed along US Highway 1 in Volusia County, Florida. Subsequently, in 1971, outdoor advertising signs which are the subject of the proceeding were constructed along Interstate 95 in Volusia County, Florida. The signs in both places are subject to permits issued by the Department to Lamar. The signs were legally erected but became nonconforming based upon their spacing in relation to other permitted outdoor advertising signs. The Lamar signs and their spacing are described as follows: Permit No. BN674-55, East of Interstate 95, 3.183 miles north of NEB790079 Hull Road is 881 feet from a permitted sign to the north. Permit No. BJ689-55, East of Interstate 95, 2.588 miles north of NEB790079 Hull Road is 343 feet from a permitted sign to the north. Permit No. BN681-55, East of US Highway 1, 0.088 miles north of Pine Tree Drive is 216 feet from a sign under Permit No. BU855. Permit No. BN682-55, East of US Highway 1, 0.027 miles north of Hull Road is within 332 feet of a permitted sign to the north. Permit No. BV232-55, East of US Highway 1, 0.0129 miles north of Pine Tree Drive is 216 feet from a permitted sign to the north. Each of the Lamar signs is within 660 feet of the first named highway or interstate, within Volusia County, Florida. Lamar owns and maintains the outdoor advertising signs that have been identified. On June 19, 1998, under dry weather conditions, a series of lightening strikes started a wildfire in a remote swampy area. Before the fire ended in July of 1998 its dimensions were extensive. The wildfire burned in Volusia and Flagler counties, Florida, west of Daytona Beach and Ormond Beach, Florida, and extending into the city of Ormond Beach. Eventually, it consumed the Lamar signs that have been described to the extent that the up-right wooden supports of each of the signs were substantially burned. This destruction took place on July 1, 1998. The degree of destruction was within the definition of "destroyed" set out in Rule 14- 10.007(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Before their destruction the signs had been lawfully permitted by the Department. Interstate 95 and US Highway 1 had been closed to the public before the Lamar signs were "destroyed." The attempt by Lamar to gain access to the outdoor advertising signs was not successful because of the road closures by government authorities. Following their destruction, Lamar re-erected the structures by reinstalling the signs at the same locations using substantially the same type of materials as had been previously found in the structures being replaced. None of the materials used to re-erect the signs were part of the sign structures immediately before the destruction of the original signs by the wildfire. When re-erected the signs were the same size, shape, and height of the destroyed signs. Lamar does not own the property where the signs are located. Lamar operates pursuant to agreements with property owners by which Lamar has the right to maintain the signs. Upon the expiration or termination of the agreements with the property owners, Lamar may remove all of its sign materials from the properties and absent an agreement no longer maintain the signs. Lamar has no other business interest in the properties where the signs are located. The purpose of the outdoor advertising signs is to lease advertising space to third parties for advertising purposes which generates income to Lamar. Each outdoor advertising sign in question provides that income. The suppression effort directed to the fire was limited due to the remoteness of the swampy area in which the fire originated and a paucity of manpower and equipment. As a consequence, the firefighting effort did not begin in earnest until June 20 or 21, 1998. The fire was combated through efforts of the Florida Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry and other national, state, and local firefighting organizations. The fuel for the fire, that is, bushes and trees, was dry. The weather conditions were highlighted by low relative humidity and a very high dispersion index. The smoke from the fire rose in the atmosphere and carried its embers from the west to the east. The fire came out of the Hull Cypress Swamp and the embers picked up by the wind crossed fire control lines and continued to spread to the east. Eventually, the two main fingers of the fire burned together on July 2, 1998. Before it was suppressed the fire, known as the Rodeo Road Fire, would consume 61,500 acres. The progress of the fire is depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, a map of the area in question, to include the area in which the subject signs were located. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 portrays the location of the signs more precisely. More specifically, the conditions in the swamp were extremely dry at the time the fire commenced as evidenced by the available dry fuel load in the swamp, which fuel load would normally be wet. Under wet conditions the fire would either not have burned or would have meandered. Given the dry conditions in the swamp in June 1998, there was a lot more fuel available to burn. East of the swamp the land that was burned was constituted of pastures, range land, and forest lands. Some areas had been subjected to prescribed burning to control available fuel loads in an incidence of wildfire but other areas had not been subjected to prescribed burning before the wildfire. Had property owners in the area affected by the wildfire conducted prescribed burning before that event it would have reduced the fuel load available for incineration. In some places in the advance of the wildfire the fuel loads were heavy, in other places less so, in that the property was constituted of pastures. In addressing the fire, the firefighters' priorities, in turn, included their safety; the safety of the public; the protection of property, to include structures; and finally the protection of resources such as timberland. By their efforts in addressing this incident the firefighters managed to save homes and businesses by creating defensible space around those structures against the on-set of the fire. The area of defensible space necessary is at least 30 feet, which reduces the chance of direct flame impact on the structure. Another technique that was employed to address the consequences of the wildfire was backfiring or imposition of the "black line concept." This is a nationally recognized firefighting technique. It is used when a fire is burning in an area that is inaccessible or has a potential to overrun a fire control line in a setting in which unburned fuel exists between the main fire and the control line. The unburned material is then deliberately burned before the main fire reaches that area to protect the control line from the main fire. The backfire is best employed when the weather conditions are conducive to its use, including wind direction and levels of humidity. During the time that the Rodeo Road Fire took place the use of backfires was not especially successful due to the dryness of the fuels. In the course of the Rodeo Road Fire, Georgia Pacific now known as the Timber Company, used a backfire to protect its property against the northward and eastward progress of the wildfire. The backfire was lit on June 28, 1999. The backfire by the Timber Company did not control the wildfire. It was successful on the west flank of the wildfire but unavailing on the east flank where the backfire by the Timber Company intersected the wildfire and the wildfire continued its eastward progress which had already begun. The setting of the backfire by the Temper Company was an appropriate tactic. Its outcome was inconsequential when considering the progress of the wildfire and its eventual destruction of the signs. Nor is the decision of a California fire crew to use a backfire to protect itself and its equipment found to have meaningful significance in promoting the forward progress of the wildfire to the east where the wildfire would destroy the signs. The backfire lit by the fire crew occurred on July 1, 1998. Backfiring to secure safety is an approved tactic for firefighters in making an independent judgment to protect their lives.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which revokes the sign permits that have been described and requires the removal of those signs within 30 days of the entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 21st day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Burdick, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Aileen M. Reilly, Esquire Livingston & Reilly, P.A. Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Attention: James C. Myers, Clerk Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street 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
The Issue Based upon the Stipulation and the evidence received, the issue to be determined is whether Bill Salter has the written permission of the land owner to erect the proposed advertising signs.
Findings Of Fact Bill Salter filed an application for the erection of outdoor advertising signs, Exhibit 1, with the Department of Transportation. This application included a lease agreement and diagram of the proposed signs. Subsequently, the Department of Transportation received a copy of the letter addressed to Ronald Lashley of Bill Salter Advertising from W. L. Whisenhant and Luverne Whisenhant, the owners of the property upon which the proposed signs were to be located, cancelling the lease for the erection of the signs. Based upon this information, the Department of Transportation denied the application of Bill Salter. At the hearing a letter dated October 12, 1979, was introduced, which is a grant of permission to Bill Salter Advertising to erect an outdoor advertising sign at the location specified in the original application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the application be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Bill Salter Bill Salter Advertising Company Post Office Box 422 Milton, Florida 32570
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
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether the Respondent's signs, bearing permits numbers AX762 and AX782, respectively, located adjacent to U.S. Highway 41 in Manatee County, Florida, be removed for the reasons set forth in the Department's Notices of Violation dated March 15, 1999.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Transportation (Department) was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of advertising along the highways of this state. Respondent, National Advertising Company, is a private company engaged in the outdoor advertising business in Florida. It owns numerous advertising signs placed at various locations adjacent to the roads in the Federal Highway System as well as state roads in this state. On March 11, 1998, Eugene Casey, an outdoor advertising inspector with the Department's Bartow, Florida, office, drove past a sign owned by Respondent and located on U.S. Highway 41 approximately 950 feet south of 73rd Street East in Palmetto, Manatee County, Florida. His examination of the sign in question revealed that it had no advertising copy on it, and it bore the permit tag with number AX782, which was issued to the Respondent. He also noted that the sign was closer than permitted to an adjacent sign, being only 408 feet away. This adjacent sign bore the permit tag number AX780, also issued to Respondent. The distance between the signs in question was measured by both Mr. Lowry and Mr. Casey. Mr. Lowry measured the distance utilizing a device in his vehicle which, he contends, was accurate to 2 feet in every 1,000 feet. Mr. Casey also used a similar device, but also utilized a walking wheel which he calibrated daily, and which he claims was exactly correct with no error. Even if the vehicle device with its 2-in-1,000 error ration were the only measurement taken, the degree of error is far less than that necessary to make any real difference in the spacing between 782 and 780, a distance of 408 feet. The Department rules require signs to be at least 1,000 feet apart. Mr. Casey also went past the sign in question approximately every two weeks during the succeeding 12 months and on no occasion did the sign display any advertising message. He took a photograph on March 11, September 15, and November 30, 1998, and also on March 24 and July 8, 1999. On none of these occasions had any advertising copy or a message of any nature been placed on the billboard. On the last occasion, he noticed that the face of the signboard had been painted to cover the apparent deterioration of the sign face. This deterioration, described as mildew and mold stains in both green and black was definitely not, as counsel for Respondent suggested, the remnants of an advertising message. On March 1, 1998, Mr. Casey also visited the sign bearing permit tag AX762, which was located on US Highway 41 approximately 590 feet north of Palmview Road in Manatee County. This sign was located on property zoned by the county as residential property. Under the rules of the Department, advertising signs may be erected only on property zoned commercial or industrial. As was the case with the previously mentioned billboard, AX782, Mr. Casey visited the site approximately every two weeks during the succeeding year and saw no message painted thereon. He took a photograph of the signboard on March 1, 1998, again on March 11, September 15, and November 30, 1998, and also on March 24, 1999. On none of those occasions did the signboard bear any advertising copy. Mr. Casey had no doubt at all that no message offering goods or services, or a public service announcement - in fact, no message of any kind was displayed on either sign. Respondent presented no evidence to indicate an advertising message had been displayed on either billboard during the period in question. Though not a matter properly in issue in this case, the Department established that both signs in question were nonconforming signs. The first, AX782, was nonconforming because it did not meet the applicable spacing requirements contained in the agreement between the state and the federal Departments of Transportation. The other, AX 762, was nonconforming because it was not located in an area designated primarily for commercial or industrial use under the county’s comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order revoking permits AX782 and AX762 and ordering their removal. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Burdick, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Aileen M. Reilly, Esquire Livingston & Reilly, P.A. Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary ATTN: James C. Myers Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 James C. Myers Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Respondent erected a sign 24' x 60' located approximately 900 feet from the I-75 in October 1973. Although this sign faced only south, Respondent obtained two tags for 24' x 60' signs in this location, one facing south and one facing north. The site on which this sign was erected was leased by Respondent in 1971. In March 1975 Respondent extended this sign to 100 feet. A building permit dated 5/30/75 was approved by Hernando County officials for an advertising sign located at or near the site of the sign in question and a final inspection date of 4-7-77 is shown on this permit (Exhibit 9). By Application dated May 18, 1975 (Exhibit 5) Respondent applied for a permit to extend the existing sign 40 feet and attached a check in the amount of $7.50. At this time Respondent had two 1975 tags for a 24' x 60' sign for which he had paid $14 each. The fee schedule shown on the application submitted in April-May-June for a 40-foot sign is &7.50 and Respondent attached a check for this amount to his application. This application was not approved because of a discrepancy in the fee and procedure followed by Respondent. Petitioner's representatives contend that the tag for the 60-foot sign should have been surrendered with the application and presumably a fee of $18.00 for a 100-foot sign remitted. However, the fee schedule shown on the face of Exhibit 5 indicates that for an application submitted in the second quarter (April-May-June) a fee of $18.00 is correct for a 100-foot sign, a fee of $7.50 is correct for a 40-foot sign and a fee of $10.50 is correct for a 60-foot sign. The fee for the 60-foot and 40-foot signs combine to equal the fee for a 100-foot sign, and since Respondent had already paid for the 60-foot sign, it was not unreasonable for him to assume he had forwarded the correct fee with his application. At the time this application was submitted in May 1975 Petitioner was aware that after 1 July 1975 an application for a sign located more than 660 feet from the right-of-way of an interstate highway could not be approved. Petitioner was also aware that at some future date these signs would have to be removed and DOT pay the owners for the value of the signs removed. In early September 1975 an employee of Petitioner, while returning from vacation, passed the sign in question and observed construction work being performed on this sign which led him to conclude that the sign had not been extended to its 100' length until after July 1, 1975. Respondent's three witnesses attested to severe tornados in early September 1975 in the area which damaged several signs, including the sign here involved. Respondent's construction foreman replaced several panels on this sign following this severe weather and used construction ladders of the type seen by Petitioner's inspector when he passed along the I-79 in early September 1975.
Findings Of Fact On September 1, 1980, Bill Salter Advertising, Inc., executed a lease agreement with Edward M. Chadbourne to erect outdoor advertising signs facing north and south on the Chadbourne property 190 feet east of the intersection of State Road 742 and State Road 291 in Escambia County, outside the city limits of Pensacola. This lease was renewed for calendar year 1981-1982 and calendar year 1982-1983. The third renewal expires on August 31, 1983. On August 4, 1981, Bill Salter Advertising, Inc., applied to the Department of Transportation for permits to erect outdoor advertising signs located 190 feet east of the intersection of State Road 742 and State Road 291 facing north and south. At the time of this application, Bill Salter Advertising, Inc., held the property under the above lease. On August 17, 1981, the Department of Transportation approved the application for permits. On April 15, 1982, Bill Salter Advertising, Inc., executed an affidavit to cancel its permits at the location 190 feet east of State Road 742 and State Road 291 facing north and south in order to get a more advantageous position for the erection of an outdoor advertising sign. On February 23, 1982, Bill Salter Advertising, Inc., executed a lease agreement with Felix Bell to erect outdoor advertising signs on the Bell property at a location on State Road 291, 190 feet east of the intersection of State Road 742 and State Road 291 in Escambia County, outside the city limits of Pensacola. On April 12, 1982, Bill Salter Advertising, Inc., applied to the Department of Transportation for permits to erect signs facing north and south on State Road 291, 190 feet east of the intersection of State Road 742 and State Road 291. At the time of this application, Bill Salter Advertising, Inc., held the property under the Bell lease. On April 27, 1982, the Department of Transportation approved this application for permits. On October 12, 1982, the Petitioner, Lamar Advertising Company, applied to the Department of Transportation for permits to erect outdoor advertising signs on State Road 291, 218 feet north of State Road 742. This location is not a Federal-Aid Primary or Interstate Highway, and it is outside the city limits of Pensacola, in Escambia County. As such it is subject to the spacing requirements of the Escambia County ordinance regulating outdoor display advertising. Such application was submitted by the Petitioner, Lamar Advertising Company, after Bill Salter Advertising, Inc., had cancelled its permits at the location, 190 feet east of the intersection of State Road 742 and State Road 291, and after the Department of Transportation had approved the application for permits submitted by Bill Salter Advertising, Inc., for locations 190 feet east of the intersection of State Road 742 and State Road 291 on the Felix Bell property. The location for which Lamar Advertising Company seeks permits is less than 500 feet from the permitted locations of Bill Salter Advertising, Inc., at 190 feet east of the intersection of State Road 742 and State Road 291.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Lamar Advertising Company for permits to erect signs facing north and south on State Road 291, 218 feet north of State Road 742, in Escambia County, Florida, be DENIED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 18th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: P. Michael Patterson, Esquire 905 West Moreno Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mark J. Proctor, Esquire Post Office Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc., was issued permits numbered AI-962-10 and AI-963-10 on or about April 28, 1983. These permits were for the erection of a sign located on the north side of I-10, approximately 1.6 miles east of SR 297, in Escambia County, Florida. They were issued because of the proximity of an automotive business noted on a sketch attached to the applications submitted by the Respondent as "Bill's Paint and Body Shop." In February of 1984, replacement tags numbered AL844-12 and AL845-12 were issued. 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 "Bill's Paint and Body Shop" to be in close proximity to the proposed sign location. On each of these applications the Respondent certified that the sign 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 a "Pritchett's Paint and Body Shop" nearby the proposed sign location. This inspector was able to see several autos on the Pritchett property and some activity around these autos. Apparently because the inspector expected to find an automotive 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. Subsequently, a sign was erected on the Pritchett property with the copy "Willie's Paint and Body Shop," but this sign was not in place when the site inspection was made. From the main traveled way of I-10, the inspector was not able to testify specifically that any paint and body work was observed, or that any commercial activity could be seen from the interstate. The inspector merely testified "I observed activity around those automobiles going on." The Pritchett property is residential. Mr. Pritchett lives there. He does operate a paint and body business from his back yard. He has had an occupational license since 1977, renewing these businesses each year through 1984. Although he could not produce a license for the year when the permits were approved, this does not mean that he didn't actually renew the license for this year. Nevertheless, as viewed from I-10, only the sign which was erected subsequent to the approval of the permits and the rear portion of some autos, can be seen. The Department's inspector made a mistake in approving the Respondent's applications because no commercial activity is visible from the interstate. The testimony of the Respondent and his witnesses, including Mr. Pritchett, is rejected as being inconsistent with what can be seen by viewing the photographs in evidence. Moreover, whoever erected the sign had to feel that the view from I-10 was inadequate to qualify the site as commercial without it. During the summer of 1984, the subject site was inspected by a Department 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 sign. In December of 1984, the Department issued its 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 permits numbered AL844-12 and AL845- 12 held by the Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc., authorizing signs on the North side of I-10, approximately 1.6 miles east 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 32399-1550 (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. 85-0327T The Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties are ruled upon as follows: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Rejected, as irrelevant. Rejected, as irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected, as irrelevant. Accepted relative to use of sketch. Rejected relative to remainder, as irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted relative to the photos. Rejected relative to remainder, as irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, as irrelevant. Rejected. Accepted relative to the application. Rejected relative to remainder, as irrelevant. Rejected, as irrelevant. Accepted relative to visibility of the commercial activity. Rejected relative to remainder. Accepted relative to everything except the visibility from I-10. Rejected, relative to the visibility from I-10. Accepted. Rejected relative to visibility from I-10. Accepted relative to the remainder. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mark J. Proctor, Esquire Post Office Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the subject signs of Respondent should be removed.
Findings Of Fact A notice of violation and a notice to show cause was sent to the Respondent, Harry Moody Signs and delivered on September 13, 1977 alleging violations of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes and violations of Rule 14-1O.4. The violation notice was marked Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 and entered into evidence. The notice cited six signs and for clarity the Hearing Officer numbered the signs from one through six on the violation notice. Testimony and evidence was taken on each sign as follows: Sign One: This sign was withdrawn from consideration by consent of both parties. Sign Two: The parties agreed that a permit would be issued for this sign within the city limits of Weeki-Wachee, Florida providing it was removed from the state's right-of-way and moved back some 51 feet. Sign Three: This double faced sign has no permit. The sign consists of a small sign stating "This is Beacon Country" which is attached to and on the top of a large sign that states "See ten different models, Beacon Woods, Beacon Homes by Hoeldtke"; on the poles at the bottom of the signs is a third sign reading "P G A Golf-Restaurant- Shopping Turn Right." Sign Four: This sign has an expired 1972 permit tag attached to it. Sign Five: This sign has no current permit tag attached thereto. Sign Six: This sign has no current permit or 1974 tag attached thereto. The Respondent admitted that this sign was in violation of the outdoor advertising law. The Respondent disclaimed any interest in Sign One and the Petitioner moved to withdraw the charges. Sign Two is located on the state's right-of-way and is within the city limits of Weeki-Wachee. It was stipulated that the sign would be removed or relocated within 20 days from date of the hearing but the Respondent has not so notified the Hearing Officer of removal. The double faced sign marked as Sign Three was the subject of argument by both attorneys who requested to submit & memorandum of law as to whether the sign was in violation of Section 479.16(3). No memorandum of law has been received from either attorney although the 30 days allotted to submit said memorandum has expired. Signs marked Four and Five have no current permit tag attached thereto. The Respondent admitted that there was no current permit for Sign number Six and the sign was in violation. The parties agreed that the sign may not be eligible for a permit.
Recommendation Remove each of the subject signs designated; Sign Two, Three, Four, Five and Six. Invoke the penalties provided for by Section 479.18 to wit: "479.18 Penalties. - Any person, violating any provision of this chapter whether as principal, agent or employee, for which violation no other penalty is prescribed, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in Sec. 775.083; and such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each month during any portion of which any violation of this chapter is committed, continued or permitted. The existence of any advertising copy on any outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising sign or advertisement outside incorporated towns and cities shall constitute prima facie evidence that the said outdoor advertising sign or advertisement was constructed, erected, operated, used, maintained or displayed with the consent and approval and under the authority of the person whose goods or services are advertised thereon." DONE AND ENTERED this 8th 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 William D. Rowland, Esquire 115 East Morse Blvd. Winter Park, Florida 32790
