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 ============================================================ =====
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has applied for a permit, and proposes to erect an outdoor advertising sign on the east side of Interstate 110, 1.5 miles north of Fairfield Drive in Escambia County, Florida. This sign would face east and west, with the copy on the face which is the subject of this proceeding facing west. Interstate 110 is a north-south highway at the point where the Petitioner's sign is proposed to be erected. The Department of Transportation has issued two permits to Lamar Advertising for an outdoor advertising sign located on the east side of I-110, approximately 320 feet north of the site of the Petitioner's proposed sign. These Lamar Advertising permits are for the north face and the south face of the Lamar sign which can be read by traffic traveling both north and south on I-110. Although the Petitioner's proposed sign would face west, the copy would be visible to northbound traffic on I-110 and to some extent to southbound traffic there. The Petitioner's sign as proposed could be seen by the same traffic as can see the Lamar Advertising sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of A. Barry Shuck, d/b/a Designs Custom Signs, for a permit to erect an outdoor advertising sign on Interstate 110, 1.5 miles north of Fairfield Drive in Escambia County, Florida, be DENIED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 16th day of September, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 132301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. A. Barry Shuck Designs Custom Signs 102 Pine Court Pace, Florida 32570 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg. M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the outdoor advertising signs of Respondent are in violation of Florida Statute 479.07(1), sign being erected without a State permit. Whether the subject signs are in violation of the setback requirements of Section 479.11, Florida Statutes. Whether subject signs are new and different signs inasmuch as they have new copy, are materially elevated from the location of the previous signs and have catwalks and lights added, thus requiring a new application and permit. Whether subject signs are in violation of federal and State laws, rules and regulations and should be removed. Whether the federal regulations adopted in Section 479.02, F.S., would have to be adopted as a rule under Chapter 120, F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent sign company has a sign located approximately 12.81 miles north of Dunn Avenue on the east side of I-95 facing south containing the following copy: "Ramada Inn Exit 7 Miles U.S. 17" The sign was increased in height from under ten (10) feet to twenty feet from the ground to the bottom of the sign, lights were added, and the catwalk was added to accommodate the change in advertisers. This extensive alteration was done in June of 1975 and copy was changed. The original sign was erected in May of 1968 and advertised "Shell Oil." Respondent sign company has a sign located approximately 8.81 miles south of Bowden Road on the west side of I-95 facing north and containing the following copy: "Family Inn of St. Augustine" The revised sign is located in an area zoned open rural, has been elevated and has had lights and catwalk added. The original sign had different copy and was erected and permitted in October of 1968. Permits had been issued for the two subject signs in the approximate location with different copy on them in October of 1968 or shortly thereafter. The new advertisers wanted the signs lighted and pay approximately $30 more per month for the lighted signs. The new signs now are much more visible. Both signs were elevated approximately ten (10) feet, new copy put on them and lights and catwalks added in April of 1976. Permits were applied for but the Petitioner Department of Transportation refused to issue permits stating that they were new signs, no new applications had been made and were obviously ineligible for permits inasmuch as the signs violated the setback requirements of Chapter 479 and the federal laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the Florida Legislature.
Recommendation Remove subject signs if said signs have not been removed by the owner within ten (10) days after entry of the final order herein, as no applications for permits were made or granted. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of December, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 W. D. Rowland, Esquire Post Office Box 539 Winter Park , Florida 32789 George E. Hollis Branch Manager National Advertising Company Post Office Box 23208 Tampa, Florida 33622 Mr. Frank Whitesell Post Office Box 1089 Lake City, Florida 32055 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact On or about April 14, 1977, Henderson Signs filed applications for four permits to erect two outdoor advertising signs in Jackson County, Florida, on the south side of Interstate 10, one approximately 1.5 miles and the other approximately 1.7 miles west of U.S. 231. These applications were field inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, they were approved on or about May 16, 1977, and the Department issued permits numbered 9248-10, 9249-10, 9250-10 and 9251-10 for the requested locations to Henderson Signs. On or about January 4, 1984, permit number 9248-10 was reported lost, and the Department issued replacement tag number AL082-10. Subsequent to the issuance of these permits, Henderson Signs transferred all of its interest in the subject permits to the Respondent, Tri- State Systems, Inc. When Henderson Signs submitted the applications for the subject permits it designated thereon that the proposed locations were within 800 feet of a business known as Dilmore's Packing Plant. These applications also certified that the signs to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Dilmore's packing Plant processes meat for sale at both retail and at wholesale. It is located approximately 660 feet back off I-10, but the building can be seen from the interstate. The automobiles of three to five employees who work there can also be seen from I-10. However, from the photograph that was received in evidence the area appears to be rural or agricultural in nature, and not commercial. Unless the existence of Dilmore's Packing Plant was known, it could not be identified as a business from the interstate. There is an on- premise sign for the Dilmore Plant, but the words on this sign cannot be read from I-10. In summary, as viewed from the main-traveled way of the interstate there is nothing about the area or the Dilmore building to indicate that any commercial activity is being conducted at this location. Jackson County is presently unzoned, and it was not zoned in 1977 when the subject permits were approved. The area in question is essentially the same now as it was in 1977, as is the site where the Dilmore Plant is located. During 1984 the sites were 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 permit locations. In October of 1984, the Department issued Notices of Violation advising the Respondent that the subject permits were being revoked because they were not for locations in a zoned or unzoned commercial area. Prior to the transfer of the permits from Henderson Signs to the Respondent, representatives of the Respondent testified that they inquired at the Department's district office in Chipley whether the permits to be purchased from Henderson Signs were valid permits. They further testified that they received assurance from the Chipley district office that these permits were legal permits. This testimony, however, is totally self-serving without some form of corroboration, and is thus not of sufficient quality to support a finding of fact.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permits numbered AL082-10, 9249-10, 9250-10 and 9251-10 held by the Respondent, Tri-State Systems, Inc., authorizing signs on the south side of 1-10, approximately 1.5 and 1.7 miles west of U.S. 231 in Jackson County, Florida be revoked and any signs erected pursuant to these permits be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 8th day of October, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County. 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 8th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire P. O. Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the sign owned by the Respondents situated on Interstate 95, 1.26 miles north of State Road 528, in Brevard County, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 1st 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 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. Richard L. Schneible and Mrs. Mary Joan Schneible Post Office Box 727 Sharpes, Florida 32959 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building - Room 562 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact U.S. 1 is a federal-aid primary highway and, in the vicinity of University Boulevard, is a divided highway, with parkway between north-and- southbound lanes. University Boulevard (SR 109) is not a federal-aid primary highway. Petitioner holds a lease on the property on which the proposed sign is to be erected and, in fact, already has a structure on this site and a permit for a north-facing sign on this structure. The proposed sign meets all DOT requirements except spacing. The structure on which the proposed sign is to be displayed is located on the east side of U.S. 1, 125 feet north of the intersection with University Boulevard. Lamar Dean Outdoor Advertising Company was issued a permit for a 14 by 48 foot sign along the east side of University Boulevard, 150 feet south of the intersection with U.S. 1. This sign faces west. That application for permit (Exhibit 8) shows the type highway to be U.S. 1, a federal-aid primary highway. A sign located on University Boulevard in Jacksonville which was not visible from a federal-aid primary highway would not require a DOT permit. This Lamar structure, which carries a Jack Bush-Toyota South copy, can easily be seen by persons in vehicles travelling on U.S. 1 and it is on the same side of U.S. 1 and within 500 feet of Petitioner's proposed sign. The Department of Transportation's (DOT) inspectors maintain inventories of all permitted signs. The criteria used by all DOT sign inspectors is to log any sign that can be seen and read from the primary highway. Actually, the Jack Bush sign can be seen by both north-and-southbound traffic on U.S. 1 when in the vicinity of University Boulevard but the northbound traffic passes closer to the sign. It is therefore carried by DOT as a south-facing sign.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Harry Moody Signs, owns a sign which was erected in December of 1981 without a state permit. This sign is located 45 feet from the edge of the pavement or curb line of U.S. 27/301/441, and 32 feet from C-434 (Alternate 441) inside the corporate limits of Belleview, in Marion County, Florida. U.S. 27/301/441 is a federal-aid primary highway open to traffic, and C-484 is a non-controlled road. U.S. 27/301/441 is considered to be a north/ south highway; however, it runs almost east and west in Belleview where it intersects C-484, which runs generally northeast and southwest at the point of intersection. The Respondent's sign is located northeast of U.S. 27/301/441, facing a westerly direction, and is visible to traffic from the southbound lane of this controlled highway. The sign in question is approximately 298 feet from a permitted sign (permit no. 947-6) which is also situated on the northeast side of U.S. 27/301/141. Although the Respondent's witness testified that the sign in question is more parallel to the primary highway than perpendicular to it, and that the permitted sign is perpendicular to this highway, both signs are visible from U.S. 27/301/441, and the copy on the Respondent's sign can be read from a distance of 300 to 400 feet away, at least. The Petitioners witness testified that the Respondent's sign stands at an angle of approximately 45 degrees from the permitted sign, and becomes visible at a distance of 929 feet in the southbound lane of U.S. 27/301/441. Additionally, the subject sign first begins to come into view on Alternate 441 (C-484) at a distance of 470 feet. At a distance of 500 feet on Alternate 441 the sign is not visible because a building located close to the road blocks the view. The measurements of distances on Alternate 441 were made by using a calibrated hand wheel on the side of the road. The distances on U.S. 27/301/441 were measured by using a calibrated electric odometer in an automobile. The Department of Transportation permits, regulates and controls signs within city limits that are adjacent to both controlled roads and non-controlled roads when the signs are visible from the main traveled way of the controlled road (federal-aid primary highway). The Respondent applied for a permit after the sign had been erected, and this application was denied because the Respondent's sign was located 298 feet from a permitted sign, causing a spacing violation. The permitted sign is also owned by the Respondent, and this permitted sign is being used as an on- premise sign. However, the state permit is currently in effect, and the Respondent plans to maintain the sign as a permitted sign. The Respondent receives revenues from rental of the permitted sign, and the Respondent pays the property owner for use of the permitted sign's location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter its Final Order finding the Respondent's sign which is the subject of this proceeding to be in violation of the applicable statutes and rules, and ordering its removal. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this the 1st day of November, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Paul Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner issued a violation notice on the 29th day of June, 1977, alleging that a sign owned by Respondent located at the northwest corner of Seminole and Pratt-Whitney Road on State Road 80, Palm Beach County, Florida, violated permit, zoning and spacing laws. No application was made for the erection of this sign and none secured from the Florida Department of Transportation. The sign is approximately 12-15 feet west of an existing sign and is approximately 60 feet from the edge of the right of way of the Federal Aid Primary Road 80. The area in which the sign was erected is zoned agricultural. Petitioner contends that the sign violates the set back and spacing requirements of Section 479 and that it was erected in an agricultural zoned area without a permit. Respondent contends that the area is agricultural and is in a remote part of Palm Beach County and that he should be allowed a variance inasmuch as the sign is necessary for the advertising of his business in the rural section of the county.
Recommendation Remove subject sign for failure to obtain a permit and for violation of zoning and spacing laws. There are no provisions for a variance under the facts of this case. DONE and ENTERED this 19th of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Allan Black, President Allan Black Construction Corporation Box 5-73 - Wellington West Palm Beach, Florida 33411
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.
