Findings Of Fact In 1976 SR 78 in Glades County was changed to a federally approved primary road. At this time Respondent's signs were in existence but had never been permitted by Petitioner. Had these signs been issued a permit and thereby legal at the time the road became a federally approved road, the Respondent could have continued to obtain annual permits for these signs. The area along SR 78 is zoned agricultural and residential. There have been no areas along SR 78 zoned industrial and commercial.
The Issue Whether the Respondent violated Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, by failure to obtain a state permit and whether Respondent is in violation of federal and state laws, rules and regulations applicable to outdoor advertising signs concerning setback and spacing restrictions.
Findings Of Fact A notice of alleged violation of Chapter 479 and Section 335.13 and Section 339.301, Florida Statutes, and notice to show cause was furnished Petitioner by certified mail dated the 16th day of December, 1976, and stamped at the Lamont, Florida Post Office December 18, 1976. The following signs are the subject of this hearing: A sign with copy reading "Pecans 3-lbs. $1.50" with an additional sign attached underneath reading "53.9" located at 1 and 6/10 miles west of Madison County line on Highway Interstate 10. A sign with copy reading "Pecans Fresh Shell $1.99) located 1 and 9/10 miles west of Madison County line on Highway Interstate 10. A sign with copy reading "Pecans 3-lbs. $1.50" located 2 miles west of Madison County line on Highway Interstate 10. A sign with copy reading "Exit Now Pecans Fresh Shell $1.99" located 2.05 miles west of Madison County line on Highway Interstate 10. A sign with copy reading "Exit Now Pecans 3-lbs. $1.50" located 2.2 miles west of Madison County line on Highway Interstate 10. No permits were secured for any of the signs which were erected subsequent to December, 1976, and visible from Highway Interstate 10 on the north side thereof. Each sign is outside an urban area. The distance and space between signs numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5 each is less than one thousand feet. Sign number 1 has the number 53.9 underneath the message advertising pecans. This number relates to the price of gasoline sold at Respondent's store wherein he sells gasoline and pecans among other things. Sign number 1 is approximately 15 feet from the fence line at the north boundary of 1-10; sign number 2 is located approximately 15 feet from the fence line on the north boundary of 1-10; sign number 3 is located approximately 15 feet from the fence line on the north boundary of 1-10; sign number 4 is located approximately 15 feet from the right-of-way line, the fence, on the north side of 1-10; sign number 5 is approximately 2 feet from the fence line on the north side of 1-10. Sign number 5 is within the offramp section of the interchange of 1-10 and State Road 257. The subject signs stand fully visible approximately 15 feet from the fence which is the north boundary line of Interstate 10 a federal aid primary highway except sign number 5 which is less than 15 feet from Interstate 10. They are placed in an old grove in which there are less than 20 old pecan trees which do not produce the product advertised for sale. The subject signs advertise pecans that are sold at the business of Respondent which is a distance of at least 3/4 of a mile from the nearest sign.
Recommendation Take such action as the law permits including but not limited to the removal of subject signs. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of March, 1977, at Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Ben H. Ervin, Esquire George L. Waas, Esquire 850 South Waukeenah Street Department of Transportation Monticello, Florida 32344 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. J. E. Jordan District Sign Coordinator, DOT Post Office Box 607 Chipley, Florida 32428 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN RE: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-001T LYMAN WALKER, III, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact State Road 51 is a federal-aid primary highway where it crosses County Road C-349 in Suwannee County. The signs were erected in the spring of 1982 and no application for permit was submitted and no permit has been issued for these signs. The signs are visible from SR 51 and are intended to give to the passing public the directions to Respondent's place of business. Without such directions, the business is difficult to locate. The signs are erected within 660 feet of SR 51 in an unzoned area outside the corporate limits of any town or city. The signs are located 58 feet from the edge of SR 51 and 50 feet from C-349.
Findings Of Fact On May 8, 1979, a representative of DOT observed a sign located on State Road 13, 1.8 miles north of the Duval-St. Johns line in Duval County, Florida. State Road 13 is a federal aid primary highway. The sign in question bore the following advertising copy: "Quail Ridge, New Homes, straight ahead to St. Augustine Rd., Right to Caron Dr." At the time the sign was initially observed it was constructed of new lumber, with fresh dirt around the holes in which the standards were placed which supported the sign. The sign was located within the corporate limits of tie City of Jacksonville, Florida, in an area which is zoned "Commercial Intensive". At the time the sign was initially inspected on May 8, 1979, no permit tag was affixed. In addition, the sign was located within two feet of another larger sign which had been properly permitted, was on the same side of the highway, and faced the same direction. The DOT representative, upon inspection of the sign, contacted Joseph Pepe, the President of Respondent to discuss the sign in question. Mr. Pepe admitted that his company owned and erected the sign with its own work crew. The sign was again inspected one day prior to the final hearing in this cause, and was still located in the same position and had no permit tag affixed to the structure.
Findings Of Fact Respondent maintains an outdoor advertising structure on the I-95 southbound lane facing north, 13.94 miles north of the Brevard-Volusia County line. Sometime between August 6, 1975 and January 12, 1976, the face of this advertising structure was raised six to eight feet in height. This was done by extensions being placed on the original poles upon which the structure sits. The structure retained its same face size and lighting. The face of this structure was raised at the request of Respondent's client in order to retain that client's business. No evidence was presented to show when this sign was originally erected. No evidence was presented by Petitioner, Department of Transportation, which would establish that the subject sign is or is not located at a "commercial or industrial zone" or an "unzoned commercial or industrial area" as those terms are defined in Section 479.01, Florida Statutes. The subject sign is located approximately 15 feet outside the right-of-way of I-95.
Findings Of Fact Two signs are located 0.8 mile west of State Road, 79 on Interstate 10, and 0.8 mile east of State Road 79 on Interstate 10. Both signs do not have permits attached to them. Both signs bear messages which are visible from the traveled way of Interstate 10. Neither sign is located within an incorporated municipality or town. Both signs advertise in part Simbo's Restaurant. Mr. Jim Williams, Outdoor Advertising Inspector for the Department of Transportation, testified that he had spoken with Mr. Simms on June 28, 1978. Williams stated that he asked Simms if Simms would remove the signs; however, Williams did not identify the signs to which he was referring. According to Williams, when Simms was asked if he would take the signs down, Simms stated he would leave them up and go to court. There was no substantial and competent evidence introduced that Simms was referring to the signs in question in this case. Both signs were measured by Charles Averitt, a surveyor with the Department of Transportation, and the sign 0.8 mile west of State Road 79 on Interstate 10 was determined to be 16 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of Interstate 10. The sign 0.8 mile east of State Road 79 on Interstate 10 was determined to be 16.5 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of Interstate 10. Gene Simms testified that he was the owner and operator of Simbo's Truck Stop and Restaurant. Simms testified the signs in question were the property of Simms' Enterprises, Inc., and had been at all times pertaining to this complaint. Simms stated that he owned 50 percent of the stock in Simms Enterprises, Inc., and the remainder was owned by his brother, Jimmy Simms. The notice of violation in this cause names Gene Simms as the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Transportation take no action regarding the subject DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Phillip S. Bennet, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Richard C. Hurst, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Gene Simms Simbo's Auto-Truck Stop and Restaurant Route 1, Box 186 Bonifay, Florida 32425
Findings Of Fact A Department of Transportation (DOT) Outdoor Advertising Inspector was doing an inventory, during May, 1987, on U.S. 231, in Jackson County, Florida, when he observed a sign that was visible from the main traveled way of the highway that was not on the sign inventory as being permitted. U.S. 231 is a federal-aid primary highway. The location is 1.78 miles south of SR 73, on the west side of U.S. 231, (southbound side ), and is 32 feet from the right edge of the southbound lane (U.S. 231). The restaurant the sign is advertising is located to the south of the sign, on the east side of U.S. 231, (northbound side). Mr. and Mrs. Cintron purchased the restaurant in October, 1985, and considered subject sign part of the business. The sign in question was erected during the summer of 1985 by the original owner. The Department's Inspector certified that said sign was removed by 6/11/87. There is one business, within 800 feet of the sign site, on the west side, a Gulf station that contains a convenience store and tire store in the same building on the same premises. The sign site is located in an unzoned area within the city limits of Cottondale, Florida. There is a repair business on the west side of the highway and a septic tank business on the east side of the highway. Both businesses are north and in excess of 1600 feet from the site in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order finding that the sign in question located on U.S. 231, 1.78 miles south of SR 73 East, in Jackson County, Florida, was in violation of the statutes for not having a state sign permit, was properly removed, and does not qualify for issuance of a permit. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 27th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2242T The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DOT's proposed findings of fact 1-3 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1-3. COPIES FURNISHED: Kaye N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Eva F. Cintron, Pro Se Post Office Box 56 Cottondale, Florida 32431 Vernon Whittier, Jr., Esquire Rivers Buford, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
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
Findings Of Fact On or about August 5, 1980, the Department issued permits numbered AB991-10, AB992-10 and AB993-10 to the Respondent, Food `N' Fun, Inc., authorizing the erection of a stacked back-to-back sign on the south side of I- 10, .8 mile east of U.S. 231 in Jackson County, Florida. Permit number AE481-10 was issued on or about May 21, 1981, for the fourth face of this sign. Prior to the issuance of these permits the site was field inspected and approved by Department personnel. Subsequently, the site was inspected by the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator who determined that the permits had been issued in error because there was no visible commercial activity within 800 feet of the sign. In October of 1984, the Department issued Notices of Violation advising the Respondent that the subject permits were being revoked because the sign was not erected in a zoned or unzoned commercial area. The Respondent's representative who submitted the permit applications designated on these applications that the sign location was in an unzoned area within 800 feet of a business. This representative also certified on the applications that the sign to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Prior to conducting his field inspection, the Department's inspector had been informed that a commercial activity (Southern Dairy Supply Company) was being conducted in a building within 800 feet of the sign location. When he made his inspection he found that the building where Southern Dairy Supply Company was located was a metal building situated behind a house in an agricultural area. However, there was nothing visible from I-10 to tell him that a business was located there. The inspector's supervisor also visited the site of the proposed sign. He saw a building that was similar to other farm buildings at this location, but there was nothing that could be seen from the interstate to indicate to traffic that there was any commercial activity being conducted in the area. Since 1981, Southern Dairy Supply Company has relocated, and is no longer in business there. The area where the subject sign is located is agricultural and rural in nature. No other commercial activity was located in the area. Although the metal building in which the dairy supply business was being conducted could be seen from the interstate, as viewed from the main-traveled way of I-10, there was nothing to indicate that any commercial activity was being conducted at this location.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit numbers AB991-10, AB992-10, AB993- 10, and AE481-10 held by the Respondent, Food `N' Fun, Inc., authorizing a stacked, back-to-back, sign located on the south side of I-10, .8 mile east of U.S. 231 in Jackson County, Florida, be revoked, and the subject sign removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 9th 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 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, T & L Management, Inc., was issued permit number AG646-10 on or about March 18, 1985. This permit was for the erection of a sign on the south side of I-10 approximately .4 mile east of SR 291 (Davis Highway) in Escambia County, Florida. It was issued because of the proximity of a trucking business as shown on a sketch attached to the application submitted by the Respondent. The Respondent submitted the application for the subject permit, and designated thereon that the proposed location was within 800 feet of a business. This application also certified that the sign to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Prior to the issuance of the subject permit to the Respondent the site was inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, who is presently employed by the Respondent. Before this field inspection the inspector had observed on the sketch attached to the application that a business known as Campbell Truck Brokers was located in the area. When the inspector viewed the property she observed a residence and one flatbed truck. She also saw several Coca Cola drink boxes, characterized as "junky looking drink boxes" on the property west of the Campbell property. The inspector made no inquiry of anyone at this location regarding whether or not a trucking business was actually being conducted there. Nevertheless, she approved the subject permit application based upon the existence of such a business, and the presence of old coke drink boxes. The business known as Campbell Trucking Company is located within 800 feet of the permitted site. Actually, two businesses are located on the Campbell property. First, the Campbell's operate Campbell Truck Brokers, a transportation brokerage business for Yellow Freight. Second, Mr. Campbell is a self-employed trucker. Both businesses are run from an office located in a building where Mr. Campbell, his wife and two sons reside. The business of Campbell Truck Brokers is done by Mrs. Campbell over the telephone located in the residence. Traffic to and from the property consists mostly of independent truckers entering the property to provide Mrs. Campbell with documentation for trip leasing. The exchange of this information is conducted in the office located in the Campbell residence. Mr. Campbell does park his truck on the property when he is not on the road. However, as viewed from the main-traveled way of the interstate there is nothing about the Campbell residence to indicate that any commercial activity is being conducted at this location. Larry Hollis is the warehouse transport manager and plant sanitarian for the Hygeia Coca Cola Bottling Plant located on Davis Highway in Pensacola. Although the Coca Cola plant is located to the west of the subject sign location, the only part of the Coca Cola plant visible from I-10 is a clock tower located more than a quarter of a mile west of the sign site, because a wooded area and drainage ponds obstruct the view. The area used by the plant for storage of empty coke "flats" is not only more than 1,000 feet from the sign location, but also was never visible from I-10. Mr. Campbell testified that two other businesses, Gulf Coast Specialists and Brown's Tank Company, are located to the south of his property. However, Mr. Campbell has never measured the distances from these businesses to the interstate or to the subject sign site, and thus there is no precise evidence relative to what these distances are. Moreover, Mr. Campbell leases part of his property to the Respondent for the sign site which is the subject of this proceeding. This factor does not necessarily taint his testimony, but he is not a disinterested witness because he would not continue to receive rent if the Respondent should lose its permit. Therefore, without corroboration of Mr. Campbell's testimony relative to other businesses in the area, it has been rejected as self-serving. During the summer of 1984 the site was inspected by the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator who determined that the permit had been issued in error because there was no visible commercial activity within 800 feet of the permitted location. In February of 1985, the Department issued its notice of violation advising the Respondent that the subject permit was being revoked because it was not for a location in a zoned or unzoned commercial area.
