Findings Of Fact Respondent owns a sign within 660 feet of the I-4 erected alongside SR 424A (Fairbanks Avenue) outside the corporate limits of Orlando or Winter Park, Florida, on the east side of I-4, an interstate highway. The sign is visible from the I-4 and the face of the sign is nearly parallel to the I-4. The sign is located within the interchange of the I-4, i.e., it is located within two lines running easterly and perpendicular to the commencement of the off ramp and end of the on ramp of the I-4 at the Fairbanks Avenue intersection. The I-4, which is considered to be an east-west highway, runs in a northwesterly-southeasterly direction where it crosses over Fairbanks Avenue, which runs generally east and west at this point. Respondent's sign is located in the vicinity (within 200 to 500 feet) of several signs erected by Peterson Advertising Company before 1971 and which are now permitted as nonconforming signs. These signs are erected along the curve of the eastbound (which at this location moves in a northwesterly direction) off ramp and are at varying angles with the I-4, but all can be seen from the I-4. Respondent's sign can be seen by both east and westbound traffic on the I-4; however, it is closer to the eastbound lane of traffic. Before the construction of this sign was completed, Respondent was advised the sign would not be permitted because it was within 1,000 feet of another sign on the same side of the I-4 facing in the same direction and within 500 feet of the interchange.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, National Advertising Company, is entitled to the issuance of a vegetation control permit for its south-facing advertising billboard located West of Interstate I-75, in Lee County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is the state agency charged with the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, which regulates outdoor advertising structures along the state highway system, including interstate highways. Construction of Interstate 75 in the relevant area of Lee County, Florida, was completed and accepted by the DOT on or about February 22, 1979. On March 10, 1980, the Florida Department of Transportation issued an outdoor advertising sign permit to Florida Outdoor for a billboard to be located adjacent to I-75, .25 miles north of the intersection of I-75 and State Road 82 in Lee County. The billboard was constructed and the billboard structure, together with the sign permit, was acquired by Petitioner in May of 1982. Petitioner holds a current valid sign permit, DOT sign permit number AB-118-10, for the above sign. Said sign is a non-conforming sign under the Rules of the DOT and cannot be moved or raised. Petitioner submitted a properly completed application for a vegetation control permit to the DOT on February 4, 1991. Petitioner's sign board does not have five hundred feet of exposure along the interstate highway within a one thousand foot window and is therefore a screened board under the provisions of the DOT's rules. Following review of the application by the District Roadway Maintenance Engineer, it was determined that the area covered by the vegetation control permit was within an area specifically preserved during the construction process which prohibits any pruning, trimming, or removal of trees, shrubs, or vegetation in that area. Based on that determination, the permit was denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A Final Order be entered finding that the vegetation control permit requested by National Advertising Company on I-75 (S.R. 93) in Lee County, Florida, should be GRANTED, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 14-13, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th December, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. National Advertising's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4 (in part) 5,6 (in part), 8,10. Rejected as irrelevant or immaterial: paragraph 4 (in part-coverage in Preliminary Statement), 6 (in part), 7,9,11. Rejected as a conclusion of law: paragraph 12,13. Department of Transportation's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance; Stipulation of Facts; paragraphs 1 (in part), 2 (in part). Rejected as conclusions of law: paragraphs 1 (in part), 2 (in part). Copies furnished: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Kreuter & Livingston, P.A. 200 East Robinson Street Suite 1150 Orlando, Florida Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has applied for a permit, and proposes to erect an outdoor advertising sign on the north side of SR 424A, 650 feet east of I-4, in Orange County, Florida. State Road 424A is also known as Fairbanks Avenue. This location is within 660 feet of Interstate 4, and the proposed sign would be visible to traffic on I-4. The Department of Transportation has issued a permit to Peterson Outdoor Advertising for an outdoor advertising sign located approximately 375 feet from the Petitioner's proposed signsite on the same side of I-4, and a sign has been erected by Peterson Outdoor Advertising at this point.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Cory Outdoor Advertising, Inc., for a permit to erect an outdoor advertising sign on the north side of SR 424A, 650 feet east of I-4, in Orange County, Florida, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 28th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearing The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary E. Massey, Esquire 112 West Citrus Street Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714-2579 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Holmes County Commission zoned the area around the intersection of I-10 and State Road 79 primarily for the purpose of permitting outdoor advertising structures? Whether the DOT may deviate with explanation from the plain meaning of its rule as set forth in Best Western I, or must adhere to the legislative mandate in Chapter 84-173, Laws of Florida to follow its rules?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The advertising structures at issue are outdoor advertising signs. (T. 25.) Said signs are located within 600 feet of Interstate Highway 10 (I-10) in Holmes County, Florida. (T. 25.) Said signs are located as follow: On I-10 1.0 mile east of State Road 79, facing east (Case No. 82-391T) On I-10 0.51 mile west of State Road 79, facing west (Case No. 82-392T) On I-10 0.83 mile east of State Road 79, facing east (Case No. 82-393T) On I-10 0.75 mile west of State Road 79, facing west (Case No. 82-394T) Said signs are located outside the limits of any incorporated cities. (T. 25.) I-10 is an interstate highway. (T. 25.) At the site of the signs, I-10 was opened and designated an interstate highway prior to the time the subject signs were constructed. (T. 25.) The signs do not have an outdoor advertising permit. (T. 25.) Petitioners have made application for permits for each sign. (T. 25.) The copy on each sign can be read from the main traveled way of I-10. (T. 25.) Holmes County has duly adopted a comprehensive land use plan and by ordinance zoned the areas where the subject signs are located as a commercial area. (T. 26, 13.) The zoning action by Holmes County was part of comprehensive zoning. The Department of Transportation (Department) disapproved the applications because it determined initially that the zoning of the area was unacceptable to the Department for permitting signs. Best Western Tivoli Inn belongs to Bonifay Tivoli, Limited, a partnership of Jack Hirschon and Joseph Beatty, who are the actual Petitioners in Cases No. 82-391T and 82-392T. (T. 26.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Transportation approve the applications of the Petitioners for outdoor advertising permits for the subject signs. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of October, 1982, 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 12th day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald Holley, Esquire Post Office Box 268 Chipley, Florida 32428 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul N. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The outdoor advertising sign which is the subject of this proceeding is situated 30-35 feet from the pavement on the northbound side of U.S. 1, approximately 170 feet north of 69th Street in the City of Marathon, Florida. The sign is visible to traffic on U.S. 1. U.S. 1 is a federal-aid primary highway, and it has been such since the subject sign was erected. This outdoor advertising sign is owned by the Respondent, T. L. Carpenter, who is also the owner of the property upon which the sign sits. The subject sign has not been issued an outdoor advertising sign permit by the Department, nor has any application for a permit been filed with the Department. This sign is less than 1,000 feet from an outdoor advertising sign which was erected on the same side of U.S. 1 by Jerry's Outdoor Advertising in 1983 or 1984. Permits numbered AK711-10 and AK710-10 have been issued by the Department to Jerry's Outdoor Advertising for its sign. The Respondent purchased the property where the subject sign stands in 1977. The sign had been erected by the prior owner, and the Respondent received the subject sign when he took title to the property. Nevertheless, the Respondent has never applied for an outdoor advertising permit for this sign. For some period of time after the Respondent bought this property and the subject sign, the Respondent advertised a health food store by copy on the sign. Presently, this sign advertises a restaurant. The copy, however, does not advertise an on-premise business. Due to the proximity of the permitted sign of Jerry's Outdoor Advertising, the Respondent may not now receive a permit for his sign at its present location.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the sign owned by the Respondent on the northbound side of U.S. 1, approximately 170 feet north of 69th Street in Marathon, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1986, 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 2nd day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. J. L. Carpenter P. O. Box 2641 Marathon Shores, Florida 33052 Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 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
Findings Of Fact On July 6 and 13, 1983, the Department resolved in its district office in Chipley, Florida, the Respondent's applications for permits to erect two stacked, back-to-back, outdoor advertising signs in Jackson County, Florida, on the south side of 1-10, one approximately 2.9 miles and the other approximately 3.1 miles west of SR 69. These permit applications stated that the locations requested were in an unzoned commercial or industrial area within 800 feet of a business. The Department's outdoor advertising inspector visited the sites twice after having reviewed the Respondent's applications and being told that he would find a business known as Dave's Garage there. The first time he visited he did not see the business. On the second visit he saw the top of a tin building and the top of a house from the interstate. There was an antenna visible on the housetop, but he could not see any commercial activity. After driving off the interstate to the site of the buildings, he found a car, a bus, a shed, some grease and oil cans, but no one was there. The front of the building had a sign on it which said Dave's Garage. Nothing could be seen from I-10 to identify this site as the location of a business, however. Based upon his inspection of the site, coupled with the Respondent's representation that a business existed there, the inspector approved the Respondent's applications. They were also approved by his supervisor, and permits for the requested locations were issued because of the proximity of the business known as Dave's Garage to the subject sites. Subsequently, after the permits had been issued, the Respondent erected its signs which are the subject of this proceeding. From January to March, 1985, there was still no business activity at the subject site that was visible from I-10. On March 12, 1985, two days before the hearing, an on-premise sign bearing the words Dave's Garage, was erected which is visible from I-10. Otherwise, the area is rural in nature. The Respondent, through its agents Ron Gay and Terry Davis, submitted the applications for the subject permits, and designated thereon that the proposed locations were in an unzoned commercial area within 800 feet of a business. These applications also certified that the signs to be erected met all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. During the summer of 1984, the sites were inspected by the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator who determined that the permits had been issued in error because of the absence of visible commercial activity within 800 feet of the signs. As a result, the Department issued notices of violation advising the Respondent that the subject sign permits were being revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit numbers AJ725-10, AJ726-10, AJ723 10, AJ724-10, AJ720-10, AJ721-10, AJ719-10 and AJ722-10, held by the Respondent, Tri-State Systems, Inc., authorizing two signs on the south side of I-10, 2.9 miles and 3.1 miles west of SR 69 in Jackson County, Florida, be revoked, and the subject signs removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 6th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire P. O. Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, T & L Management, Inc., was issued permits numbered AK081-12 and AK082-12 on or about August 30, 1983. These permits were for the erection of signs on the north side of I-10, approximately .4 mile west of SR 297, in Escambia County, Florida. They were issued because of the proximity of a welding business adjacent to the proposed sign location. The Respondent submitted the applications for these permits, and designated on the applications that the sign location would be in a commercial or industrial unzoned area within 800 feet of a business. On each of these applications the Respondent certified that the signs to be erected would meet all requirements of Chapter 479 of the Florida Statutes. Prior to the issuance of these permits, the subject site was inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, who approved the applications because of the existence of what she believed to be a welding shop nearby the proposed sign location. This inspector was looking for a welding shop because she had been informed that a welding shop was located there. What she saw was some welding being done on the property where the welding business was supposed to be. This could be seen from the interstate. Apparently because the inspector expected to find a welding business near the proposed sign site, she concluded that such a business existed there, and the applications were approved. However, the occupant of the subject property has lived there for 37 years, and he has never operated a welding business. He has only done welding on this site once since 1980, when he welded a bumper onto a truck in his barn. The photographs which were received in evidence show his property, and the general appearance of this area is residential or rural in nature, and not commercial. It is visible to traffic on I-10. The Department's inspector testified that she used a pair of binoculars to enable her to see a small sign reading "welding" on the property where she saw welding being done. However, the property owner denied that any such sign was on his property. Other witnesses presented by the Respondent also testified that they saw welding being done, but this issue has been resolved by accepting the testimony of the witness who lived on the property and who did the welding on the one occasion, as being the more credible and trustworthy evidence. The adjacent property is leased by Pensacola Outdoor Advertising. This property has a building on it which bears a small sign reading "Pensacola Outdoor Adv." and the telephone number. This building was leased by Pensacola Outdoor Advertising in 1984, and was not used for any business purpose when the permit applications were submitted. This property is also visible from I-10. When the Respondent applied for the subject permits there was no business activity being conducted within 800 feet of the proposed sign location. Therefore, the Department's inspector made a mistake in approving the Respondent's applications for this site. In October of 1984 the Department issued its violation notices advising the Respondent that the subject sign permits were being revoked.
Findings Of Fact In May and June of 1983 the Department received in its district office in Chipley, Florida, applications for four permits for outdoor advertising signs to be located adjacent to I-10, approximately one mile west of S.R. 285, in Walton County, Florida. Two of these applications requested permits to erect a two-faced, back-to-back structure on I-10, 4,262 feet west of S.R. 285, and two of these applications sought permits to erect a two-faced, back-to-back structure on I-10, 5,262 feet west of S.R. 285. These permit applications stated that the locations requested were in a commercial or industrial area within 800 feet of a business. The Department's outdoor advertising inspector approved these permit applications in June of 1983. When he visited the sites he found a small building, approximately eight to ten feet by approximately ten to twelve feet in dimension, situated at a point 300 feet from one of the sign sites and 700 feet from the other site. There was a pile of steel lying on the ground adjacent to this building. He was told by the Respondent's president that the Respondent's plan was to put an office on the site, and a building on which to work on signs and to store material. On the basis of his inspection of the site, coupled with these representations of the Respondent's president, the inspector approved the four applications for sign permits. Subsequently, in 1984 after the permits had been issued, the small building had been removed and was replaced by a shed and another small building. However, in 1983 at the time the applications for permits were submitted, the site where the business activity was planned did not have telephone service, nor did this location have any mailing address, and there were no employees of the Respondent on the site until 1984. The Respondent obtained this location for the purpose and with the intent of locating its sign business thereon, but when the permit applications were submitted the site had not yet become a commercial location. Much of the evidence presented by both sides at the hearing concerned activities conducted at the location between the two sign sites subsequent to the time when the permit applications were submitted. However, this is irrelevant. The salient facts are that the president of the Respondent knew that a business activity within 800 feet of the sign site was required in order to obtain lawful permits; he intended to establish his own sign business at a location between the two sign sites which would comply with the permitting requirements; but in June of 1983 when the permit applications were submitted, there was not then in existence any business activity within 800 feet of the proposed sign sites. Thus, the statement of the Respondent on its applications that the proposed sign sites were in an unzoned commercial area within 800 feet of a business was false, and the Respondent's president knew this when he submitted the applications.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permits numbered AJ511-12, AJ510-12, AJ509-12 and AJ508- 12, held by Reese Outdoor Displays, Inc., be revoked, and the signs which were erected pursuant to these permits be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 20th day of May, 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 20th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 George Ralph Miller, Esquire P.O. Box 687 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
