The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation should is sue a permit under Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, for the subject outdoor advertising sign.
Findings Of Fact An outdoor advertising sign located 9.85 miles east of Volusia County line on Highway 1-4, East, with copy presently reading, "Four Seasons" was cited for violation by the Petitioner, Department of Transportation. Said violation notice was sent to the Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising Company. The sign is located approximately 1200 feet north of State Road 430-A on the east side of 1-4 facing south and bears a 1974 state permit No. 6273-10. It is not disputed that this sign was owned by Rivers Advertising Company and sold by Rivers Advertising Company by Bill of Sale dated June 21, 1974 to the Petitioner, Department of Transportation. The sign did not conform to the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, as evidenced by memorandum dated May 1, 1973, Department of Transportation files, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, and upon its sale to the Department was to have been removed by the Department from its location. The payment for the sign amounted to $4,975 which was paid by check to the owner, Rivers Advertising Company. Rivers Advertising Company had leased the real property on which subject sign stood from the property owner, Mr. Gene Berna. Mr. Berna said that Rivers Advertising Company had not paid under their lease agreement at the time that the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, sought to remove the sign subsequent to its purchase from Rivers on June 21, 1974 and would not let the maintenance crew remove the structure. Dandy Signs claimed ownership of the sign by virtue of the fact that Gene Berna sold it to then and that it purchased a renewal 1974 permit tag Number 6273-10-74 and affixed it to the structure. Dandy Signs had never made an application for a permit for subject sign but through error of the Petitioner acquired the permit sign attached to subject sign through the inclusion of it in a regular renewal procedure. Subject sign was not eligible to be permitted under the renewal procedure inasmuch as said sign had been purchased by the State of Florida on June 21, 1974 and Dandy Signs was not eligible for the renewal permit issued because it did not own the sign. Dandy Signs, claiming ownership for the sign through an agreement with the owner of the property on which the sign was located, then "sold" the subject sign by Bill of Sale to the Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising, by an instrument dated May 27, 1975. The proposed Recommended Order filed by the Respondent has been examined and considered in the preparation of this order. The Hearing Officer further finds: The subject sign is owned by the Petitioner. The property owner, Gene Berna, had no title to the subject sign. His only interest was as lessor of the real property. Dandy Signs was on notice that the sign did not belong to the property owner, Gene Berna, and that it belonged to Rivers Outdoor Advertising. Berna told Dandy Signs the subject sign belonged to Rivers. Dandy Signs should not have requested a renewal permit on a sign not previously owned by it and not purchased from the owner. The Petitioner erroneously issued a renewal permit on subject sign upon Dandy's representation it was the owner of the sign. Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising, received no interest in the sign by the alleged Bill of Sale of May, 1975, inasmuch as it did not buy the sign from the owner, the State.
Recommendation Deny the request for a permit. Remove the subject sign which is owned by the Petitioner and should be removed from the roadside. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William Rowland, Esquire 115 East Morse Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32789
Findings Of Fact Outdoor Display is a licensed outdoor advertiser holding License No. 18191 from Polk County. The two signs which are referenced in the charges are located on U.S. 92 respectively 2.59 miles and 2.67 miles west of U.S. 27. These signs were inspected in 1975 and the first sign bore 1971 permit issued to Outdoor Display. The signs each had a value of more than $100. Both signs belonged to Outdoor Display, and neither sign bore a current permit. Boger receives application from Outdoor Display as the outdoor advertising administrator but had not received any application with regard to these two signs prior to the hearing.
Findings Of Fact The outdoor advertising sign which is the subject of this proceeding has been erected on a small parcel of land located approximately one-quarter of a mile west of First Street on Rockland Key, next to the southbound lane of U.S. 1, in Monroe County, Florida. This location is outside the city limits of any municipality. On approximately October 1, 1983, Mr. Frank Toppino, who is not a party to this proceeding and who was not presented as a witness at the hearing, leased the subject property to the Pier House Inn and Beach Club for one year. Under the terms of this lease, the Pier House Inn received the right to use the property for an outdoor advertising structure which the parties to the lease contemplated would be constructed there. The Pier House agreed to pay the sum of $950 to Mr. Toppino as rent for the year. In addition, the Pier House agreed to undertake construction of the sign on the land for the benefit of Mr. Toppino, the lessor, after the lease expires. The PIER House received the right to use this land for one year, and the right to place advertising copy of its choice on the face of the outdoor advertising structure for one year. The lease between Mr. Toppino and the Pier House Inn covering the subject property was received in evidence. This lease, and the testimony of the general manager of the Pier House Inn who executed it as lessee, which is detailed above, supports a finding of fact that Mr. Frank Toppino and not the Pier House was the owner of the outdoor advertising structure which is the subject of this proceeding on October 1, 1983. Subsequently, when the Department's Outdoor Advertising Administrator made his inspection of the subject sign, there was no state outdoor advertising permit affixed thereto, and the Department has not issued any permit for this structure. The sign was erected between two other permitted signs, and it is closer than 500 feet to both of these existing and permitted structures. The sign which is the subject of this proceeding is located adjacent to a federal- aid primary highway outside any incorporated city or town. It is visible from U.S. 1, and it is within 660 feet of the edge of the pavement of this highway. The Department's Outdoor Advertising Administrator made a determination that the Pier House Inn was the owner of the sign in question based upon information contained in a Monroe County Building Permit application, and based upon the hearsay information received during telephone conversations. However, this information is controverted by the direct testimony of the general manager of the Pier House Inn which is itself corroborated by the lease between Mr. Toppino and the Pier House which is in evidence. Thus, the testimony received from the Department's witness is not of sufficient quality to support a finding of fact that the Pier House Inn is the owner of the sign in question. Moreover, the Department has the burden of proof on this issue, and the quantity and quality of the evidence presented on the matter of ownership of the subject sign does not carry this burden.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the violation notice issued on December 12, 1983, to the Pier House Inn and Beach Club, be dismissed, without prejudice to the reinstitution of proceedings in which the violation notice is directed to the actual owner of the sign in question. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 23rd day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, 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 23rd day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 H. Ray Allen, Esquire 618 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040
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 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 On September 1, 1981, the Department received in its district office in Chipley, Florida, the Respondent's application for a permit to erect an outdoor advertising sign adjacent to I-10, approximately 1.62 miles east of SR 69S in Jackson County, Florida. This permit application stated that the location requested was in a commercial or industrial area within 800 feet of a business. The Department's outdoor advertising inspector visited the site after having reviewed the Respondent's application and being told by Harry Fuqua that he would find a business called Branch's Garage there. He found a house with a tin farm-type building like a barn in the back. Inside this tin barn were some tools and welding equipment. There was a sign on the door stating the business hours, and another sign on the side of this tin building stating the name Branch's Garage. None of this was visible from I-10, however; all that could be seen from the interstate was the roof of the residence and part of the tin barn; there was no indication to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity was being conducted at this location. The inspector's supervisor and the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator both visited the site prior to approval of the subject permit. The supervisor had also been told that he would find a business known as Branch's Garage there, and he was looking for it. At the site he observed what appeared to be a garage and some work being done. This could not be seen from I-10, and from the interstate he could not see anything that would indicate to traffic that a garage was at this location. The Respondent's representative, Harry Fuqua, admits that no business activity was visible from I-10, and that there was nothing to indicate to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity was being conducted at this location. The site where Branch's Garage is located cannot be reached from I-10 directly. It would have to be approached from one of the side roads after traffic had exited the interstate. Based upon his inspection of the site, coupled with the Respondent's representation that a business called Branch's Garage existed there, the inspector approved the Respondent's application for a sign permit. Thereafter, both the supervisor and the Right-of-Way Administrator also approved the application. The permit was issued on or about September 8, 1981, because of the proximity of the proposed site to the nearby business known as Branch's Garage which had been observed by the inspector, his supervisor, and the Right- of-Way Administrator. Subsequently, after the permit had been issued, the Respondent erected its sign which is the subject of this proceeding. In late 1984 and early 1985 there was no business activity at the subject site and there continues to be nothing there to indicate to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity exists at this location. The Respondent through its agent Harry Fuqua, submitted the application for the subject permit, and designated thereon that the proposed location was in an unzoned commercial area within 800 feet of a business. This application also certified that the sign to be erected met all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit number AF191-10 held by Fuqua & Davis, Inc., be revoked, and the sign which was erected pursuant to this permit be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 11th day of July, 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 11th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine C. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 James J. Richardson, Esquire P. O. Box 12669 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2669 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the outdoor advertising sign of Respondent should be removed for lack of an outdoor advertising permit and for being erected without a permit within the prohibited distance of an interstate highway.
Findings Of Fact A violation notice and Notice to Show Cause dated August 3, 1978, was served upon the Respondent charging him with violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, Sections 335.13 and 339.301, Florida Statutes, and Rules 14-10.04 and 14-10.05, Florida Administrative Code. The sign in question carries the copy "Arrowhead Campsites" and is located 0.5 mile west of U.S. Highway 231 on Interstate Highway 10. An administrative hearing was requested on the charges. A billboard advertising Arrowhead Campsites has been erected within the past three years in Jackson County, Florida, about one-half mile west of U.S. 231 on the south side of Interstate 10. The sign is approximately fifteen (15) feet south of a fence located within the right-of-way of Interstate 10. The outdoor advertising is approximately one hundred (100) feet from the edge of the interstate highway and is clearly visible to the public traveling on the interstate. It obviously was erected to advertise the campsites to those traveling on the federal highway. The sign is located on private property in a rural area along the interstate highway. No outdoor advertising permit is attached to the subject sign, and no application has been made to the Florida Department of Transportation for a permit for subject sign. It was stipulated that the Respondent, Bill Reddick, is the husband of the owner of Arrowhead Campsites, and that Mr. Reddick accepted service of the notice and the notice has not been questioned.
Recommendation Remove the subject sign without compensation therefor and assess penalties as provided in Section 479.18, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James P. Appleman, Esquire 206 Market Street Post Office Box 355 Marianna, Florida 32446 Richard C. Hurst, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Jack M. Wainwright d/b/a Dee-Tara Advertising has met the requirements of Section 479.111(2), and is eligible for a permit for outdoor advertising structures from the Florida Department of Transportation. (a) Whether there is effective control of outdoor advertising structures by any local authority in Leon County as required by Title 23, Section 131, United States Code, the implementing federal regulations and the contract entered into between the Governor and the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration on January 27, 1972, promulgated pursuant to Section 479.02, Florida Statutes. Whether the subject parcel of land can be zoned by the Leon County Commission so that outdoor advertising structures can be permitted by the Florida Department of Transportation and erected within 660 feet of an interstate highway.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Jack M. Wainwright conditionally leased 1.16 acres of land, approximately 113.88 feet on the south right-of-way line of Interstate 10 in Leon County, Florida. The effectiveness of the lease was on the condition that the land be rezoned by the Leon County Board of County Commissioners. If the parcel were so rezoned the lessee promised to pay the lessor $250.00 per year for each side of a billboard to be erected on the parcel and further, the lessee would pay to the lessor any increase in taxes attributable to rezoning. The leasing and application for rezoning was primarily for the purpose of placing outdoor advertising on the property to be rezoned along the interstate highway. The lessor owns a small automotive facility which he had been operating for years on his agricultural-zoned five (5) acres. The rezoning encompassed the portion of his acreage farthest from the highway. He hopes to gain more business from the rezoning effort although there is no access to Interstate-l0 less than a mile from his property. The leased land surrounded by land zoned agriculture-2 as is the remainder of the lessor's acreage. The closest business by way of the Interstate is a truck stop about a mile west of the property on State Road 59 near an interchange on 1-10. The interstate is mostly through agricultural lands in this area as well as through most of Leon County, Florida. The application for rezoning was denied upon the first application to the Leon County Board of County Commissioners. Upon second application to the Board the property was rezoned from "agriculture-2" to "rural-commercial" by ordinance 77-26. Neither the rezoning application or ordinance mentions outdoor advertising. After the rezoning of subject land in July, 1977, Respondent applied to Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation for a permit to erect two outdoor advertising signs on the subject property to be not less than 15 feet but within 660 feet of the right-of-way of Interstate-10. The authority for his claim that billboards could be permitted on the rezoned property was derived from the 3.977 rezoning ordinance together with a 1972 and a 1973 ordinance, infra. Leon County Ordinance 72-114, dated November 21, 1972 allows, inter alia, outdoor advertising signs in designated districts as follows: "1. CT Commercial Tourist District CR Commercial Rural District C-2 General Commercial C-4 Automobile Commercial M-2 General Industrial" There is no "Rural-Commercial" designation as subject property was rezoned by ordinance 77-26 and there are no definitions in the billboard ordinance to describe what type of development was intended to be allowed in such districts. A portion of a 1973 ordinance entitled "Section 6.19 CR Rural Commercial District" states in the "District Intent": "The provisions of the CR district are intended to apply to rural areas with direct access to a major street or roadway located within convenient travelling distance to rural residential and agricultural areas, wherein small groups of commercial establishments, cultural and institutional activities and certain uses for processing or selling agricultural products are permitted. A large variety of commercial activities are permitted in recognition of the rural character and long travel distances from rural areas to urban commercial centers." The Zoning Director for the City of Tallahassee and County of Leon stated that a "commercial-rural" district is a broad commercial classification and is more closely associated with the Leon County Commercial Zone C-4, an Automotive-Commercial zoning of the most intensive of all units located along major thoroughfares in the urban areas. The Petitioner through its state administrator for outdoor advertising, disapproved and returned the application to Respondent stating, "it is felt that the rezoning classification does not meet the requirements imposed by State and Federal regulations for permitting of a sign" it cited various state and federal laws and warned that the lack of "effective control" of outdoor advertising signs, displays and devices subject any state to the loss of 10 percent of the amounts which would be otherwise apportioned to such state under Section 104 of Title 23, United States Code, until such time as such state shall provide "effective control". Respondent applied for an administrative hearing. Pursuant to its powers and duties under Section 125.01(g), the Board of County Commissioners adopted a comprehensive plan known as the "Interim Land Use Plan" in 1971, to be effective until 1995. The comprehensive master plan is basically a map of Leon County but it is also a plan or guideline of goals and policies adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. There is a separate planning commission in Leon County whose duties include public hearings and making recommendations as to land use to the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning Commission recommended to the Board that the 200 feet from the southern boundary of Interstate-10, a part of the subject property, remain agriculture-2 so that outdoor advertising in the area along the interstate would be discouraged. Concern was indicated by the Planning Commission in its April 7, 1977 meeting that if the subject property were rezoned to rural-commercial that the planning commission might be asked to create spot commercial zones along the interstate to accommodate billboards. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan itself was not modified by the subject rezoning and the area remains agriculture-2 on the plan. The Board of County Commissioners itself has the authority to amend the plan but an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan requires a separate and different procedure than the procedure used to rezone property as was done in the subject rezoning. The Hearing Officer further finds: The Leon County Board of County Commissioners followed correct legal procedures in rezoning the subject parcel of land to "rural-commercial". The Respondent has a county permit for the construction of his proposed signs. The Board denied the rezoning of the property in 1974 but granted rezoning on July 12, 1977. The billboard ordinance of 1972 was considered by the Board at the time thee area was rezoned. The rezoning of the area is in fact "spot zoning" or "strip zoning". Respondent contends: That the only authority permitted to zone subject property is the Board of County Commissioners and once zoning is completed by the county it is final state action; That the Board followed the proper procedures when it rezoned the subject property; That once the property was rezoned "commercial" the previously existing ordinance allowing billboards in commercial zones could be used to permit billboards in that area; That "spot zoning" or "strip zoning" is within the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners; That the zoning of property by the Board of County Commissioners renders inapplicable the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, as amended as well as the State's control of outdoor advertising including the Governor's contract with the Federal Highway Administrator; That the Highway Beautification Act and Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, Outdoor Advertisers, allows billboards on any property zoned "Commercial" including lands along interstate and federal aid highways. Petitioner contends: That the Leon County Board of County Commissioners has authority to zone lands in Leon County but the subject zoning is "spot zoning" which is universally condemned and the acre plus of land was rezoned from agriculture in the midst of agriculture zoned land for the primary purpose of erecting billboards on the interstate highway. That the rezoning for the purpose of erecting outdoor advertising by the Board of County Commissioners was a usurpation of state government authority under Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. That the rezoning ordinance of 1977, no. 77-26, is silent on the subject of outdoor advertising and the "rural-commercial" zoning of the ordinance only allows "limited commercial or industrial activities. . . and is not considered to be commercial for outdoor advertising control. That the outdoor advertising ordinance of 1972, which allows billboards in "commercial-rural" is inapplicable to the subject rezoned land because it lies in an area zoned agriculture for at least one mile in any direction. That neither ordinance 72-114 or any comprehensive zoning plan has been submitted to or accepted by the Federal Highway Administrator as " effective control" of outdoor advertising as required by federal law and the Contract of the Governor and the Federal Highway Administrator dated January 27, 1972. The main contention of the Respondent is that the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to regulate outdoor advertising through its zoning powers under Chapter 125, County Government. The main contention of the Petitioner is that the State Department of Transportation is required to regulate the outdoor advertising under Chapter 479, Outdoor Advertisers.
Recommendation Deny the application for permit to erect outdoor advertising on subject rezoned property. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 W. Kirk Brown, Esquire Post Office Box 4075 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue This case arose upon the filing of a complaint against Dick Signs by J. H. Hobson, Outdoor Advertising Agent, Department of Transportation Right of Way Bureau. The case was thereafter referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Department of Transportation for hearing to determine whether Dick Signs was in violation of Section 497.07, Florida Statutes, by erecting, using or maintaining advertising structures without acquiring and affixing to said structures the permits required by law. Counsel for the Department of Transportation moved for additional time to submit evidence of notice of the hearing and was granted leave to file with the Hearing Officer said notice not later than October 28, 1975. Having examined the notice, the Hearing Officer finds that notice was given in the manner and within the time prescribed by Chapters 120 and 79, Florida Statutes. James H. Hobson was called and his sworn testimony was received regarding the six signs charged to be in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, in the Administrative Complaint. Based upon his testimony the Hearing Officer makes the following findings:
Findings Of Fact The first sign referenced in the charges was located on S.R. 775 and ALT 45, 2.75 miles south of its junction with U.S. 41. It was inspected by the witness Hobson on June 18, 1975. This sign was 24' x 10', bore a 1972 permit with number 2485-6-72 issued to Dick Signs, bore a plague indicating it was owned by Dick Signs, and had an advertisement for First Federal on the date of inspection. The annual licensing fee is $6, and has not been paid for the years 1973, 1974 and 1975. The second sign referenced in the charges was located on S.R. 775 and ALT 45, 2.31 miles south of its junction with U.S. 41. This sign was inspected by the witness Hobson on June 18, 1975. This sign was 10'x 40' and was double faced, presenting advertising copy on two directions which could be seen from the highway. It bore a 1969 permit, number 4282-10-69 issued to Dick Signs and bore a plague indicating it was opened by Dick Signs on the date of inspection. The annual fee for said double faced sign is $20, and this fee has not been paid for 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975. The third sign referenced in the charges was located on S.R. 775 and ALT 45, 2.59 miles south of its junction with U.S. 41. It was inspected by the witness Hobson on June 18, 1975. This sign was 10' x 40', bore a 1972 permit number 4195-10-72 issued to Dick Signs and bore a plague indicating it was owned by Dick Signs on the date it was inspected. The annual fee for this sign is $10, and this fee had not been paid for the years 1973, 1974, and 1975. The fourth sign referenced in the charges was located on S.R. 775 and ALT 45, 1.10 miles south of its junction with U.S. 41. It was inspected by the witness Hobson on June 18, 1975. This sign was 10' x 24' and bore a plague indicating it was owned by Dick Signs. It did not have any permit. The annual fee for said sign is $6. The fifth sign referenced in the charges is located on S.R. 775 and ALT 45, 1.10 miles south of its junction with U.S. 41. It was personally inspected by the witness Hobson on June 18, 1975. This sign bore a 1972 permit number 2076-4-72 issued to Dick Signs and a plague indicating it was owned by Dick Signs on the date of inspection. The size of this sign requires an annual fee of $6 and had not been paid in 1973, 1974, and 1975. The sixth sign referenced in the charges was located on S.R. 775 and ALT 45, 1.68 miles south of its junction with U.S. 41. It was personally inspected by the witness Hobson on June 18, 1975. On the date of inspection it bore a 1972 permit issued to Dick Signs and a plague indicating it was owned by Dick Signs. The annual fee for this sign is $10 and it had not been paid in 1973, 1974, and 1975. The witness testified that Dick Signs was a licensed outdoor advertiser holding License No. 18233, valid for 1975. The witness further testified that in the course of his duties be would receive any applications for renewal of the permits of the signs identified above, and these applications had not been received prior to the hearing.
Findings Of Fact In mid-1983 National had a properly permitted outdoor advertising structure bearing tag numbers AD-016-10 (south-facing sign) and AD-018-10 (north-facing sign) on the east side of U.S. 27 on leased property in Highlands County. In the latter part of 1983 this property was purchased by Young. On September 15, 1983, Young notified National that he was the owner of the property on which this sign was located and requested National to remove the sign. On September 16, 1983, Young applied for a permit to erect an outdoor advertising sign at this location. Young's application was disapproved by DOT on November 7, 1983, because DOT's records showed this to be a site occupied by a permitted sign (Exhibit 3). On or about October 26, 1983, after having received no response from National to his request for National to remove the sign, Young cut down the sign by sawing its supporting posts. On November 28, 1983, Young requested a hearing on the denial by DOT of his application for a permit for a sign at this site. On November 3, 1983, National obtained a lease (Exhibit 2) on property abutting Young's property and, on or about November 4, 1983, erected a sign on this property using the same faces from the fallen sign and attached the tags issued for its original sign. National's original lease dated 10/13/80 (Exhibit 1) with John Larino provided that either party could terminate the agreement on thirty days' notice. When Young purchased the property from Larino, he complied with the lease provisions regarding termination of the lease, including rebating the rent for the unused portion of the lease. Young erected a sign on this property on November 6, 1983, before his application had been denied and two days after National had re-erected its sign. Young obtained a county building permit on September 16, 1983, for the sign he subsequently erected. National has not applied for permit for the structure erected on the land leased from Boyd but attached permit tags AD-016-10 and AD-018-10 to the sign. The juxtaposition of the signs is as follows: proceeding north on U.S. 27, the first sign is owned by Young, next is the site of the former National sign, and then National's new sign. All of these locations are on the east side of U.S. 27, are less than 1,000 feet from a permitted sign to the south, are more than 500 feet from the sign, and all are within 180 feet of each other. When an applicant applies for a permit for a new sign, the site is inspected by a member of the Outdoor Advertising staff in the DOT district where the sign is to be located in company with the application, or the site is staked out by the applicant and viewed by a staff member. This inspection is to ascertain that the proposed sign will be located the required minimum distance from an existing sign and the proper distance from the roadway from which the sign will primarily be observed. DOT'S policy is that any relocation of the sign from the authorized location constitutes a new sign and requires the submission of a new application and approval therefor. The approved application for National's original sign was on U.S. 27 2.9 miles north of "Junction 17-Sebring." This location is on the property now owned by Young.
