The Issue Whether a sign owned by Henderson Sign Company located approximately one- tenth of a mile east of the junction of State Road 73 and U.S. 90 containing as old copy "Key Drug Center" and new copy "Best Western Motor Inn" is in violation of the permit (Section 479.07(1) and (6), F.S.), spacing (Sections 479.02 and 479.111(2), F.S.), and setback (Section 479.11(1),F.S.) requirements.
Findings Of Fact The respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising structure adjacent to U.S. Highway 90 approximately one-tenth mile east of its intersection with State Road No. 73 within the corporate limits of the City of Marianna. This structure is a double billboard, with one advertisement for "Key Drug Center," erected in August of 1974, and the other for "Best Western Motor Inn" erected in April of 1976. It is located approximately five (5) feet from the edge of the sidewalk approximately 10 to 15 feet from the edge of the north side of Highway 90. At the time of the Respondent's erection of the first sign, he obtained a permit from the City of Marianna but not from Petitioner Department of Transportation. Before erection of the second sign, in 1976, the Respondent submitted an application to the Petitioner, but the application was denied. There is no other outdoor advertising structure bearing a properly issued permit from the Petitioner in existence within 500 feet from the Respondent's advertising structure although there is a non-permitted sign within 120 feet facing in the same direction. Petitioner has entered into evidence a copy of the zoning ordinance of Marianna, Florida. Petitioner contends: that the signs of Respondent violate the set-back, space and permit section of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and of The Governor's Agreement of 1972. Respondent contends: that the Petitioner has not proved where the edge of the right-of-way of Federal Highway 90 is located, that the other sign, if any, is not a lawful sign, having no permit, so the spacing violation, if any, is not enforceable and that the requirement of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, does not apply to incorporated cities.
Recommendation Remove subject signs for violation of the 660 foot setback requirements of a federal aid highway, Section 479.11(1), and the spacing requirements of the Governor's Agreement of January 27, 1972. The zoning ordinance of Marianna, Florida does not show that there is effective control of outdoor advertising by the City of Marianna. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of January, 1977 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 Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Room 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Richard Wayne Grant, Esquire 209 North Jefferson Street Marianna, Florida 32446 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Henderson Sign Service Post Office Box 887 Marianna, Florida Mr. J. E. Jordan District Sign Coordinator Department of Transportation Post Office Box 607 Chipley, Florida 32428
The Issue Whether the outdoor advertising signs of Respondent were in violation of Florida Statutes 479.07(1), sign erected without a state permit; Whether the subject signs were in violation of Florida Statutes 479.11(1), sign erected within 660 feet of the right of way of a federal aid highway; Whether subject signs are new and different signs inasmuch as they have new facings, are erected on new poles and are materially elevated from the location of previous signs. Whether subject signs are in violation of the federal and state laws and should be removed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Transportation, issued to the Respondent, Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia, notices of alleged violations of Chapter 479 and Section 335.13, Florida Statutes, on July 28, 1975 with respect to five (5) signs at five (5) different locations, to-wit: .14 miles south of Volusia County on Interstate Highway 95; .75 miles south of Volusia County on Interstate Highway 95; 1.58 miles south of Volusia County on Interstate Highway 95; and 3.51 miles south of Volusia County on Interstate Highway 95. Pursuant to these notices, the Respondent requested this hearing for the determination of whether the Respondent is in violation of Florida Statutes, as alleged in the violation notice. Respondent is the owner of five (5) signs referred to in paragraph (1) of these findings Five signs with similar copy were erected by the Respondent in May of 1971 at the approximate location of subject signs. The Respondent owned and maintained the five (5) signs from April of 1971 until April-June of 1975 when such signs were removed and the subject signs built. Each of these signs is within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right of way of an interstate highway system, but each of the signs have a permit attached, first issued in 1971 and reissued through 1974 inasmuch as the former signs were owned by Respondent and lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971, and became nonconforming on December 8, 1971, under Section 479.24(1), Florida Statutes. Between April-June, 1975, the Respondent replaced the signs existing since 1971 to better advertise its products along 1-95, south of Volusia County, Florida. Said replacement signs are in the approximate location as the replaced signs and said replacement signs have the same size facing as the replaced signs. The replacement signs are on different poles, wood being substituted for metal and at a more elevated height (between 16 and 20 feet higher) than the replaced signs. The replacement subject signs are much more visible to the traveling public than the old signs because of the materially increased elevation. The charge in the location of the subject signs, although only a short distance, the new facing materials, the replacement of metal poles with wooden poles and the decided increase in elevation make these different signs within the meaning of Chapter 479, F.S., and the federal regulations, thus, becoming new signs requiring permits rather than qualifying as nonconforming with the customary maintenance or repair of existing signs, allowed under Section 479.01(12), F.S., infra. The owner of the signs was given written notice of the alleged violations and said Respondent has had a hearing under Section 479.17, F.S., and Chapter 120, F.S.
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. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of May, 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: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Benjamin F. Wren, III, Esquire 0. Box 329 Deland, Florida 32720
The Issue Based upon the testimony received the primary issue is whether the poles were erected before the highway, I-10, was opened to the public. If so, do such poles constitute signs within the meaning of Section 479.23, Florida Statutes, for the purposes of "grandfathering" such structures?
Findings Of Fact The subject signs are located 1.4 miles east of State Road 71 on I-10. These signs were inspected an October 22, 1980, by an inspector of the Department of Transportation, who observed that the signs' messages were visible from the main traveled way of I-10 and did not bear the permits required by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. At the time of this inspection, I-10 was open to the public and was a part of the interstate highway system. See DOT Exhibit 1 and DOT Exhibit 3. The signs are located in an unincorporated area of Jackson County, Florida, which does not have a zoning ordinance. (Transcript, page 39.) Prior to the date of the hearing, name plates identifying Henderson Signs as responsible for the signs were attached to the signs. (Transcript, page 29.) The Department had notified Henderson Signs of the Notice of Violation, and Henderson Signs requested a formal hearing by letter of its Counsel dated December 19, 1980. See files, Cases No. 81-104T and 81-105T. The foregoing facts establish that the subject signs are signs regulated by the Department pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and that Henderson Signs had a substantial interest in the signs. Gene Henderson testified concerning the erection of the poles and the attachment of sign faces to the poles. The sign poles were erected during the latter portion of 1975, and a sign face advertising "Shell Food Store" was affixed to the sign (Case No. 81-104T) on March 30, 1978. Subsequently, a second face (Case No. 81-105T) was affixed on August 1, 1978. That face was changed to one advertising "Hopkins, This Exit." The signs are owned by Henderson Signs, which erected the poles prior to the time I-10 was opened to the public. The Department introduced DOT Exhibit 3, which shows that the section of I-10 along which the subject signs were located was opened to the public on October 14, 1977. The Department introduced DOT Exhibit 7, an aerial photograph of the section of I-10 along which the subject signs are located. This photograph bears the number PD 1996 and is Sheet 11 of 28 sheets taken on December 29, 1976. The photograph's legend reflects it has a scale of one inch equal to 50 feet. The Department's engineer, who established that the scale was accurate, indicated by a red mark the measured location of the signs 1.4 miles east of SR 71 on I-10. The photograph was examined by the Department's engineer, who did not observe the presence of poles or outdoor advertising signs at the location. The photograph was taken nearly one year after the date Henderson stated the poles were erected but does not reveal the presence of the poles. Even if one assumes they were erected, a sign face was not attached until March 30, 1978, several months after I-10 was opened to the public.
Recommendation Having considered the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties, and based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Transportation enter its final order directing the removal of the subject signs within 30 days and without compensation to the signs' owner. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 16th day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles M. Wynn, Esquire Jacob D. Varn, Secretary 310 Jackson Street Department of Transportation Post Office Dox 793 Haydon Burns Building, MS 57 Marianna, Florida 32446 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about August 16, 1982, the Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc., filed applications for two permits to erect an outdoor advertising sign in Escambia County, Florida on the west side of I-110, .95 mile north of SR 296. This sign would have one face for northbound traffic and one face for southbound traffic, and would be located outside the city limits of Pensacola. These applications were field inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, and they were approved by the Department's district supervisor in Chipley. On or about September 20, 1982, the Department issued permits for the requested location to the Respondent. On these applications the Respondent designated that the proposed sign location was in an unzoned commercial area within 800 feet of a business. These applications also certified that the sign to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. A sketch attached to the applications showed that the proposed sign location would be adjacent to a business that was designated as Coleman Roofing. When the field inspector visited the site she was aware that an antique business was supposed to be located in the area because it was designated on another outdoor advertising company's application as a business that qualified another sign location as unzoned commercial. This inspector found Hazel's Antiques because there was a sign which said "antiques" and a nearby shed which was visible from the interstate. In continuing to look for Coleman Roofing, she walked up the embankment between I-110 and the subject location until she could see what she determined to be some roofing material stored at one end of the property. She approved the Respondent's applications more on the proximity of the antique business than on the basis of Coleman Roofing. The owner of the property where the antique business was supposed to be is not in the antique business and has never conducted any business activities from this property. She lives there in a mobile home, and no one else has ever been in business on her property. Another outdoor advertising company obtained her permission to place a sign on her property saying "antiques", and there are some antiques in her mother's home, but these are not for sale. A representative from this sign company also took out a county occupational license in the name of this property owner, but she did not apply for this license. The shed seen by the Department's inspector is used for cookouts, and while there is some old furniture outside, it is junk waiting to be carried away. The owner of the property where Coleman Roofing was supposed to be is a self-employed roofer operating out of a trailer in which he lives. He has also worked from his home as a carpenter. He has no business telephone in his home, only a residential listing, and he only does bookkeeping from the dining room of his home. Outside there is a shed where he has kept his boat and an outbuilding with junk and old furniture in it. When he is working on roofing jobs he orders roofing material delivered to the job site. His property is in a residential area, and any leftover roofing material that may be there is awaiting a trip to the dump. As viewed from I-110, there is no indication that any commercial activity is being conducted at the subject location. The nature of the area within 660 feet of the interstate right of-way and within 800 feet of the Respondent's sign is residential. Sometime prior to November of 1984, the site was 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 its notice 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 AH820-10 and AH821-10, held by the Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc., authorizing a sign on the west side of I-110, .95 mile north of SR 295, in Escambia County, Florida, be revoked, and the subject sign removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 12th 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 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mark J. Proctor, Esquire P. O. Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent's sign permits should be revoked on the basis that the permit location is not within an unzoned commercial or industrial area as required by the foregoing provisions of the statutes and rules.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 8, 1982, Branch's Outdoor Advertising filed applications for two sign permits to allow erection of an outdoor advertising sign in Jackson County, Florida. The sign is located on the north side of I-10 approximately 1.92 miles east of State Road 69. The sites applied for were field-inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, were approved and the Department issued the permits numbered AI33-10 and AI34-10 for the requested location. When the entity known as Branch's Outdoor Advertising submitted the application for the permits, it designated thereon that the proposed location was in a commercial or industrial unzoned area within 800 feet of a business and that the signs to be erected would meet the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The business which is located within 800 feet of the Respondent's sign is known as "Branch's Garage" Branch's Garage is located in a large tin shed which is used as a storage shed for farm equipment by Mr. Branch. Mr. Branch is a farmer as well as the operator of the welding and automotive repair business which is located in that same tin building. A portion of that building is visible from the main traveled way of Interstate 10. Branch's Garage is the only business located within 800 feet of the Respondent's-sign. Mr. Branch maintains two signs on or in the vicinity of his building advertising Branch's Garage and Welding Shop. The signs and the parked cars and vehicles associated with the business are, in part, visible from I-10. Mr. Jack Culpepper, the Petitioner's "Right-of-Way Administrator", was given the specific assignment of attempting to "reestablish effective control of outdoor advertising in the third district" in approximately the Summer of 1983. Mr. Culpepper had no direct knowledge of and had not inspected the vicinity of the sign in question prior to that time. In 1984, shortly before the Notice to Show Cause in question was issued, Mr. Culpepper did inspect the area and arrived at the belief that no commercial activity was occurring at the site known as Branch's Garage. Mr. Culpepper acknowledged that during his inspection, while driving down Interstate 10 in the vicinity, might not have noticed commercial activity which might have been going on at Branch's Garage. Mr. Culpepper acknowledged that, outdoor advertising regulatory personnel in the third district had adopted a more strict enforcement policy and interpretation. of the foregoing legal authority at issue in 1984 than had been the case in 1982 when the sign was permitted. In essence, that change in interpretation embodied a policy of not permitting, or seeking to revoke, permits for signs for unzoned commercial activity areas or locations when the commercial activity upon which the permits were predicated was not visible from the main traveled way of I-10, as opposed to the situation in 1982 whereby permits were issued if a commercial activity was present within 800 feet of a sign, without consideration of whether the commercial activity was visible from I-10. Mr. Branch conducted his welding and auto repair business known as Branch's Garage during the time in question in 1982 when the permits were issued at the site in question (the tin building). He also was conducting that activity during 1984 including the time when the Notice to Show Cause was issued. Mr. Branch is a farmer and uses the tin building in question for both businesses. Mr. Branch derives a part of his livelihood from the automobile repair and welding business. The on-premise signs located at Branch's Garage are visible from I-10. The applications for the outdoor advertising permit submitted by Branch's Outdoor Advertising were subjected to a field inspection as to the proposed site by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector on October 13, 1982. That inspector had been employed by the Department for some twelve years at the time. In connection with his duties involving enforcement of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14.10, Florida Administrative Code, he had adopted a basic procedure for inspection of sign sites applied-for, which included actual inspection of the proposed site and, if the proposed site was in an unzoned area, ascertaining that there was an unzoned commercial activity present within 800 feet of the sign site. The inspector had made prior inspections of the site. As a result of those prior inspections he had already issued permits to another sign company authorizing the erection of a sign within the same vicinity based upon the unzoned commercial activity known as Branch's Welding and Garage. Based upon his field inspection in connection with the Branch's Outdoor Advertising applications in question, this inspector approved the applications, resulting in the issuance of the permits in question. The inspector had not been provided with rules or guidelines which would assist him in identifying and determining whether a commercial activity was present at the time of his inspection. He was required to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis, given the relevant statutory provisions, his experience, and instructions by his superiors, as to what would qualify as a commercial activity. Based upon the activities he observed being conducted at Branch's Welding and Garage, he concluded that there was sufficient legal basis for issuance of the permits. Upon issuance of the outdoor advertising sign permits to Branch's Outdoor Advertising, Mr. Branch erected a sign on his property which was improperly located and violated the spacing requirements between it and a sign known as the "Fuqua sign" which had previously been erected within the vicinity of his business. The incorrect location of Branch's sign created an enforcement problem for the Department's outdoor advertising personnel. In order to resolve that conflict with Mr. Branch, the owner of Branch's Outdoor Advertising, the inspector took an agent and representative from Tri-State Systems, Inc., Mr. Matt Fellows, to the site and identified the permits for Mr. Branch's sign as being legal permits. The inspector advised Matt Fellows that the sign was improperly located and suggested that Tri-State purchase Mr. Branch's permits and build a properly located sign at that vicinity location for which the permits had originally been issued. Based upon the information and suggestion from the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, the Respondent contacted Mr. Branch and made arrangements to purchase the sign permits in question. After consummating the purchase, it constructed a sign in question at the location authorized by the permits. The purchase of the permits and the subsequent erection of the sign was done in reliance upon the directions, information and suggestions from the Department's outdoor advertising inspector. The Notice of violation issued October 3, 1984, to Respondent's assignor, Branch~s Outdoor Advertising, was issued at the behest of Mr. Jack Culpepper, the Right-of-Way Administrator for the Department's Third District on or about September 27, 1984. Mr. Culpepper determined to issue the notice of violation based upon his formal inspection of the area immediately prior to that date, whereupon he concluded that the permits had been issued in error in 1982. Mr. Culpepper had no personal knowledge of whether any commercial activity was being conducted at the subject location in 1982, but relied on what had been reported to him by other third district personnel. The inspector who had personally inspected the property in 1982 had been satisfied that an unzoned commercial activity was occurring a proper distance from the sign site and his immediate supervisor had agreed with that interpretation which resulted in the permits being issued. Because of the change in interpretation of the foregoing statutory authority concerning sign permits in the Department's third district to a more strict interpretation, as delineated above, the Notice to Show Cause was issued against Respondent's assignor on October 3, 1984.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the petition by the Department of Transportation against Tri-State Systems, Inc. should be dismissed and that Tri-State Systems, Inc. should be permitted to retain the permits referenced above. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of October, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting in its entirety with the competent substantial evidence of record. Rejected for the same reason except for the last sentence which is accepted in so far as it demonstrates the reason for issuance of the Notice of Violation. Accepted, although this proposed finding of fact is not material, relevant nor dispositive of the material issues involved in this case. Accepted, although, as to its last sentence this proposed finding of fact is not material or relevant to a disposition of the material issues presented. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not in and of itself dispositive of the material issues presented in that it is immaterial to disposition of those issues. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Copies furnished: Maxine P. Ferguson, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 A. J. Spalla, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building ============================================================ =====
The Issue Whether respondent's initial proposal to deny petitioner's application for a permit to construct an outdoor advertising sign had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it occurred or was otherwise substantially justified; or, if not, whether special circumstances would make an award of costs and fees unjust?
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1988, petitioner proposed to erect a sign facing east, within 15 feet of an existing outdoor advertising sign, on the north side of State Road 200, approximately .6 miles west of the intersection of State Road 200 and I-75. He planned to place a single face at such an angle to the existing, single-faced sign that a V configuration would result. Another outdoor advertising company held a permit for the existing sign, which faced west. It stood on property belonging to a land owner who did not own the property to the east on which Ray proposed to raise its sign. On November 10, 1988, the Department of Transportation issued a notice of intent to deny petitioner's application for a permit to construct the outdoor advertising sign. Petitioner reasonably incurred attorneys' fees of $787.50 and costs of $28.00 before Department of Transportation decided, well after the evidentiary hearing held April 5, 1989, to issue the permit, after all. As far as the record reveals, the Department has faced only one other situation in which an applicant for a permit to construct a sign, within 15 feet of an existing sign, proposed to build on property not owned by the land owner who had leased to the company which had built the existing sign, viz., Ad-Con Outdoor Advertising v. Department of Transportation, No. 89- 0087T. In that case, too, the Department issued a permit for the second sign. In an internal memorandum dated February 17, 1989, respondent's Rivers Buford wrote Dallas Gray, while the Ad-Con application was pending, the following: Inasmuch as the proposed sign would be within fifteen feet of another sign it would, by virtue of the provisions of Rule Chapter 14-10.1006(1)(b)3, be considered a part of a V-type sign and thus its two faces would be exempt from the minimum spacing requirements of Section 479.07, F.S. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. The memorandum antedated the final hearing in Case No. 88-6107 by more than six weeks. Presumably, the intended rule reference was to Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code. At the hearing in the present case, the Department of Transportation produced two witnesses to explain why the Department initially turned down petitioner's application. In their view, the Department of Transportation should never have granted petitioner's application, in order to protect rights vested in the other company, particularly a purported, preemptive right the other company had, by virtue of the location of its existing sign, to build another sign where Ray proposed to build, even though the other company did not own and had not leased the site Ray applied to build on. They asserted not only that the Department was substantially justified in turning down petitioner's application when it was originally considered, but also that any other similar application should be turned down. In their opinion, the Department erred in issuing permits in both cases in which the question has arisen. They attributed the eventual issuance of permits to petitioner and in the Ad-Con case to misinformed and misguided departmental employees. As authority for this view, Mr. Kissinger, respondent's Motorist Information Services Coordinator, cited Sections 479.07(9)(a) and 479.01(14), Florida Statutes (1989) and Rule 14-10.006(b)(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, T & L Management, Inc., was issued permits numbered AG994-10 and AG995-10 on or about April 19, 1982. These permits were for the erection of a sign located on the west side of I-110, approximately one mile north of Brent Lane in Escambia County, Florida. They were issued because of the proximity of an antique business noted on a sketch attached to the application submitted by the Respondent as "Hazel's Antiques and Used Furniture". 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 commercial business. The sketch shows what is designated as "Hazel's Antiques and Used Furniture" to be in close proximity with the proposed sign location. On each of these applications William L. Terry certified that the sign would meet all requirements of Chapter 479 of the Florida Statutes. Although the Respondent did not inspect the site prior to submitting the applications, the location was represented to the Respondent to be a permissible sign site by a locator, Jerry Birch, who was acting in the capacity of agent for the Respondent. Prior to the issuance of these permits, the subject site was inspected by Department personnel on at least two occasions. As viewed from I-110, a shed and a sign reading "Antiques" was visible at this location. While inspecting what the applications described to be an antique business nearby, they observed various items around and under the shed, described as "bottles and jars", "very well used furniture", "merchandise or junk" and "a chair or maybe more than one". However, neither Hazel Croley who resides at this location in the trailer represented by T & L Management as "Hazel's Antiques and Used Furniture", nor anyone else, has ever sold antiques on this property. The shed which is visible from I-110 was used for cookouts. Although her mother's house, which is also located on this property, contained antiques, these were not for sale. Any furniture or items stored outside of the residences of this property were discarded junk, "unusable stuff" and not for sale. The sign reading "Antiques" was placed at this location at about the time the subject applications were submitted to the Department by the agent of T & L Management, Jerry Birch. Mr. Birch also supplied Hazel Croley with an occupational license in her name for an antique business at this location. This license was for the year 1982 only, and was paid for by T & L Management. These events compel a finding that the antique business at this location was a sham perpetrated by the Respondent to circumvent the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. 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 November 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 AG994-10 and AG995-10 held by the Respondent, T & L Management, Inc., authorizing signs on the south side of I-10, approximately one mile north of Brent Lane in Escambia County, Florida, be revoked, and any signs erected pursuant to these permits be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 18th October, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 1985. APPENDIX The Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties are ruled upon as follows: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Rejected because irrelevant. Rejected because irrelevant. Rejected because irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. Rejected. Rejected because irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. Rejected because irrelevant. Rejected because irrelevant. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Michael D. Smith, Esquire 201 East Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of Billboard Consultants for permits to erect outdoor advertising signs on Prudential Drive (U.S. 1), 90 feet south of Flagler Avenue, facing south, in Jacksonville (Duval County), Florida, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 22nd day of April, 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 April, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The sign in question is located .17 mile east of State Road 46 on the east bound side of Interstate 4 in Seminole County. The sign is a two-sided sign bearing the McDonald's logo and name, mounted on the top of a high monopole located adjacent to the interchange ramp 56 feet from the highway right of way. The sign is visible from the main traveled way of both lanes of the interstate highway. The Respondent, McDonald's, obtained a permit from Seminole County for the erection of the sign but did not apply to the Department for an outdoor advertising permit. The subject sign was noticed for violation on April 15, 1986, for having no State permit, for violating the spacing rules for signs on interstate highways, and for being within 500 feet of a restricted interchange. The McDonald's restaurant, owned by the Respondent and advertised by the subject sign, is located on a 1.6 acre parcel of land with 250 feet of frontage on Heckman Drive and approximately 425 feet deep. Heckman Drive runs north and south parallel to Interstate 4 and intersects State Road 46 east of Interstate 4. From the 1.6 acre parcel of land, a "7" shaped piece of land 10 feet wide runs over 400 feet to the north and approximately 160 feet to the west to a point 56 feet from the right of way of Interstate 4 where the subject sign is erected. The strip of property is not developed and contains no buildings or structures except the subject sign. There is no activity currently at the sign site. A drainage ditch separates the sign from the restaurant and a power line right of way intersects the strip. McDonald's offered a plan to use the connecting property for pedestrian walkway. No contracts were introduced showing any planned development in accordance with the plans presented.
Recommendation Having found that the subject sign is in violation of Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, and fails to qualify for the exemptions of Section 479.16 and may not be permitted because it violates the provisions of Section 479.07(9)(a), Section 479.11, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.09, Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order directing the Respondent to remove the subject sign and give the Respondent notice that if the sign is not removed within 30 days, the Department will remove the sign and take action to recover the cost of removal from the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 16th day of February, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry B. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 9166 Coral Springs, Florida 33075 Frederick B. Karl, Jr., Esquire COBB & COLE Post Office Box 191 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Kaye Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Thomas Bateman, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
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.
