Findings Of Fact On January 18, 1984, Ms. Vana Kinchen, Petitioner's inspector, examined Respondent's billboard in question, located somewhat North of 8th Street (Glendale Road) on the northbound side of U.S. Highway 1 in Indian River County, Florida, and discovered that the permit tag which was supposed to be affixed to the billboard was not there. DOT records reflect the permit in force for that billboard at the time was number 3515-10. Ms. Kinchen immediately contacted the Respondent's representative, Mr. Gustinelli, and told him there was a billboard owned by Respondent at that location without a tag. She requested he check it out and get back to her. When he did so the same day, Mr. Gustinelli told her that Respondent's records showed the billboard had been taken down because they had lost the lease on the property where it had been situated. Ms. Kinchen again told him that the billboard was in fact still there and for him to again check and see what was going to be done with it. When Respondent took no action to rectify the situation, Ms. Kinchen wrote a report of violation on this billboard on March 20, 1984, which reflected it was sited 100 feet north of Glendale Road on the northbound side of U.S. 1, and sent it in to her headquarters. On May 14, 19841 she received a notice from DOT headquarters directing her to remove the offending billboard. She immediately contacted Mr. Gustinelli and asked him again to check on the status of the sign. When she again contacted him on May 29, 1984, he again advised her that Respondent's records showed that the sign at the location described by Ms. Kinchen had been taken down previously. On June 18, 1984, Ms. Kinchen was told by Mr. Fred Harper, Petitioner's District Administrator, to give Respondent 30 more days to get the sign down. Upon the expiration of this period, the sign was removed by Ms. Kinchen and a crew from DOT. In early September, 1984, after she had taken the sign down, she discovered that Respondent had erected a new sign within inches of the site of the previous one. When she checked this new sign on October 4, 1984, she discovered that it had no permit tag affixed to it. At the same time, Ms. Kinchen noticed that the sign in question was located 250 feet south of another signboard along the same side of the highway. To get this figure, she measured the distance along the edge of the pavement with a tape-measure. The sign to the north does not face the same way as the sign in issue here, however. Ms. Kinchen admits that prior to the change in the law in July, 1984, the sign in question here, if bearing a proper permit tag, would have been a legal, conforming signboard under the old statute and Respondent could have removed it and replaced it with another as it wished. When Ms. Kinchen wrote the citation for the replacement signboard in October, 1984, she described its location as 25 feet north of 8th Street on the northbound side of U.S. 1 (as opposed to 100 feet north of Glendale Road on the northbound side of U.S. 1). This is different from the location listed on the earlier citation which was given to Mr. Gustinelli. Though Ms. Kinchen insists the original sign which she cut down and its replacement were in the same place, and that the two citations refer to the same sign, the information provided to Respondent was different. There was no explanation by either party as to how close these described locations actually were though there is no doubt the citations do refer to the same sign. This lack of certainty may have been confusing to Respondent and have contributed to its failure to take appropriate corrective action. In fact, Mr. Richard Solamine, Respondent's District Manager, so contends, indicating that when given the first location by Ms. Kinchen, they determined they had no sign at that location and so decided to do nothing about it. This does not, however, excuse their failure to insure that the new sign, which they erected on the site of the old one, had a proper permit tag affixed. The fact remains that they knew it did not, (they applied for a replacement in July, 1984), but did not follow up to insure that the replacement was issued and affixed to the new sign. When the "take down" notice for the sign covered by permit 3515.10 was issued by DOT, that permit was canceled and Respondent has not been billed for it since then in the annual bill DOT sends out. Once the sign is removed, and a certificate to that effect is received from the field, the permit number for that sign is removed from the inventory of the local district and sent to DOT headquarters with the certificate of removal. This effectively cancels the permit and it is no longer billed to the permittee. Even though this was done here, Respondent re-erected the sign. Mr. Harper admits that under the law which existed prior to July, 1984, DOT may not have had the authority to extinguish Respondent's permit. If Respondent had voluntarily taken the sign down at that time, while the permit was valid, and had continued to pay the yearly renewal fee for the permit, it would still be good even if the sign were not replaced. Also, if the permit was valid when the sign was taken down, and was renewed each year, a new sign could still be erected legally using that permit. Any permit issued prior to July, 1984 which was legal and conforming, remained legal and conforming if renewed. Respondent has not been billed for permit 3515.10 since 1984. Respondent showed that it applied for replacement for a lost tag on July 31, 1984, forwarding a check for the $3.00 replacement fee. Respondent could not show, however, that a replacement was issued at that time or that it had paid renewal fees in 1985 or 1986. The evidence offered by Respondent to establish this was rejected as incompetent. It is found, therefore, that Respondent has not renewed permit number 3515.10 and did not affix a permit tag to the reconstructed offending sign subsequent to July, 1984. Though the citation issued by Ms. Kinchen on October 4, 1984 show improper citations of statute and rule in some instances, the lists of violations are properly described in words and Respondent could not have been misled thereby.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order in this case directing that the sign in question herein be removed. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of December, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 11th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-4171T The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Incorporated in Findings of Fact 1, 3, and 4. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 8-10. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1 & 2. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Accepted but not incorporated due to irrelevance except for the fact that Ms. Kinchen issued the notice of violation which is incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 2. 5-7. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. 8. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4. 9. Accepted. 10. Rejected as a summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. 11. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4 except for the second sentence which is misleading. 12. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Proposed Finding of Fact implies the removed signboard was conforming. It was not since the permit tag was missing. 13. Not a Finding of Fact, but a recitation of the testimony of a witness. 14. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. 15. Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151
The Issue Whether the outdoor advertising signs of Respondent were in violation of Florida Statute 479.11(1), sign erected without a state permit. Whether subject sign is a new and different sign inasmuch as it has new facings, is erected on new poles and is materially elevated from the location of the previous sign. Whether subject sign is in violation of federal and state laws and should be removed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Transportation, issued the Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corporation, notice of alleged violation of Chapter 479, F.S., on October 27, 1975 with respect to the following sign: Highway: S.R. 8 (I-95) Location: Junction I-95 and U.S. 17 Copy: 76 Truck Stop Pursuant to this notice the Respondent requested this hearing for the determination of whether the Respondent is in violation of Florida Statutes, as alleged in the violation notice. This request was made by John T. Graczol, vice president of leasing, by letter dated November 6, 1975. Respondent is the owner of the sign referred to in paragraph 1 of these findings. A sign with similar copy was erected by the Respondent prior to 1970 at the approximate location of subject sign. The Respondent owned and maintained the sign from time of erection up until January of 1975 when such sign was removed and the subject sign built. Subject sign is erected in a nonconforming area both in zoning and on a ramp outside of the city limits on an interstate highway. It is nearer than 660 feet from the nearest edge of the right of way of an interstate highway system in an open rural zoning area and can be read by persons traveling on the interstate highway system. The sign that was removed was in the approximate location with similar copy but with an elevation of under 10 feet. Subject sign is a replacement sign in the approximate location as the replaced sign with the same type of copy. The replacement sign is on different poles and at a more elevated height (from under 10 feet to over 16 feet) than the replaced sign. The replacement subject sign is much more visible to the traveling public than the old sign because of the materially increased elevation. No part of the old sign is standing and the replaced sign has been removed The Petitioner testified that the value of the sign increased by $484.00 and it is the finding of the Hearing Officer that the replacement sign is of more monetary value than the replaced sign. The new facing materials, the replacement of poles and the decided increase in elevation, make subject sign a different sign within the meaning of Chapter 479, F.S. and the federal regulations, thus, becoming a new sign requiring a permit rather than qualifying as nonconforming with the customary maintenance or repair of existing signs allowed under Section 479.01(12), F.S., infra. The owner of the sign was given written notice of the alleged violation and said Respondent has had a hearing under Section 479.17, F.S., and Chapter 120, F.S.
Recommendation Remove subject sign if said sign has not been received by the owner within ten (10) days after entry of the final order herein. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William D. Rowland, Esquire P. O. Box 539 Winter Park, Florida Mr. O. E. Black Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. F. S. Whitesell District Sign Coordinator South Marion Street Lake City, Florida 32055
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Atlantic Outdoor Advertising, Inc., has erected a sign adjacent to Southside Boulevard, approximately 346 feet from Atlantic Boulevard, in the City of Jacksonville, Florida. Atlantic Boulevard is a federal-aid primary highway, while Southside Boulevard is not. The place where the Respondent erected the subject sign is within 660 feet from Atlantic Boulevard, and this sign is visible from the main-traveled way of Atlantic Boulevard. The subject sign is approximately 300 feet from another sign, owned by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company, which was permitted by the Department in 1980 and 1981. The Naegele permits are still valid, and they authorize a sign within 660 feet of Atlantic Boulevard on the same side of the road as the Respondent's subject sign. When the Respondent erected its sign it had obtained a building permit from the City of Jacksonville, and it holds a lease to the site where the sign is located, but the Respondent does not have a state permit for its sign and no state sign permit has been applied for by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the outdoor advertising sign of the Respondent, Atlantic Outdoor Advertising, Inc., located adjacent to Southside Boulevard, approximately 346 feet from Atlantic Boulevard, in the City of Jacksonville, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 18th day of June, 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 18th day of June, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-3021T Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but irrelevant. Accepted, but irrelevant. Accepted, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Paul M. Glenn, Esquire 2900 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc., was issued permits numbered AI625-10 and AI626-10 on or about February 15, 1983. These permits were for the erection of signs on the north side of I-10, approximately .65 mile west of SR 297, in Escambia County, Florida. They were issued because of the proximity of a welding business noted on a sketch attached to the applications submitted by the Respondent. The Respondent submitted the applications and the attached sketch for these permits, and designated on the applications that the sign location would be in an unzoned area within 800 feet of a business. The sketch shows what is designated as a welding business to be within 800 feet of the proposed sign location. On each of these applications the Respondent certified that the signs 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 was believed to be a welding shop nearby the proposed sign location. This inspector was looking for a welding shop because one was indicated to be there by the sketch attached to the applications. What she saw was some welding being done on the property where the welding business was shown on the sketch to be. This could be seen from the interstate. Apparently because the inspector expected to find a welding business near the proposed sign site as represented on the Respondent's applications, it was concluded that such a business existed there, and the applications were approved. However, the occupant of the subject property has lived there all his life, and has never operated a welding business. He has only done welding on this site once, when he welded a bumper onto a truck. This took ten to fifteen minutes to complete. The photographs which were received in evidence show his property, and the area depicted was substantially the same in 1983 as when the photos were taken. The general appearance of this area is residential or rural in nature, and not commercial. It is visible to traffic on I-10. 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 February of 1984, and was not used for any business purpose when the permit applications were submitted. This property is also visible from I-10. However, 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 May of 1984 the Department issued its violation letter advising the Respondent that the subject sign permits were being revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permits numbered AI625-10 and AI626-10 held by the Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc,, authorizing signs on the north side of I-10, approximately .65 mile west of SR 297 in Escambia County, Florida, be revoked, and any signs erected pursuant to these permits be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 31st day of October, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-4175T Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted Rejected. Accepted. Rejected, as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected, as contrary to the weight of the evidence, except for the grant of field approval of the permits which is accepted. Accepted, except for cost of erection of the sign which is rejected as irrelevant. Rejected, as irrelevant. Rejected, as irrelevant. Rejected, as contrary to the weight of the evidence, except for visibility which is accepted. Rejected, as irrelevant. Rejected, as contrary to the weight of the evidence, except for visibility which is accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Hayden Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mark J. Proctor, Esquire P. O. Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Honorable Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, J.B. Davis, Inc., owns an outdoor advertising sign which is situated on the north side of I-10, .33 mile west of U.S. 221, in Madison County, Florida. This sign faces eastbound traffic, and it is not in any incorporated city or town. I-10 is a part of the interstate highway system, and it is open to traffic. The subject sign is visible from the main traveled way of I-10. The subject sign has been erected and is situated within 500 feet of a restricted interchange. The subject sign does not have a permit issued by the Department of Transportation. There is no zoning in Madison County, Florida. The subject sign has been erected and is situated beyond 800 feet from any existing business, and it is within 660 feet from the right-of-way of I-10.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's sign situated on the north side of I-10, .33 miles west of U.S. 221, facing eastbound traffic, in Madison County, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1985. 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 3rd day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. J. B. Davis, President Paul A. Pappas, Secretary J. B. Davis, Inc. Haydon Burns Building, Room 562 Base and Duval Streets Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Madison, Florida 32340
The Issue Whether Respondent was in violation of Subsection 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, providing for the permitting of outdoor advertising structures.
Findings Of Fact Respondent maintained two outdoor advertising signs adjacent to U.S. Highway 90 in Gadsden County, Florida. The first sign listed on the notice of outdoor advertising law violation dated August 5, 1974, has been removed. No further action is necessary in regards to this sign. The second sign listed on the August 5, 1974, Notice of Violation is located adjacent to U.S. Highway 90 1/2 mile West of the city limits of Quincy, Florida. The second sign was not permitted in the years 1973 or 1974. Respondent has not made application for a current permit as of the date of hearing.
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.
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.
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 The Steakery and the Sugarloaf Leisure Club are businesses in Summerland Key, Monroe County, Florida, that are owned by William A. Hare. For the past four years, Mr. Hare has, on behalf of his respective businesses, leased two outdoor advertising signs that are located on the same support structure with one sign being directly above the other. On one sign there appears an advertisement for The Steakery while on the other there appears an advertisement for the Sugarloaf Leisure Club. These two signs face are located in Monroe County, Florida, on the northbound side of U.S. 1, a federal-aid primary highway. The support structure for the signs is approximately 10 feet from the highway. No permit has been issued by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) for either sign. The signs are located in a part of Monroe County which is zoned "Native Area". This area is not zoned commercial or industrial and is not an unzoned commercial or industrial area. The signs are not located on the business premises of the sign owner. The signs were inspected by the DOT's Outdoor Advertising Inspector and found to have no state sign permits attached them. On October 5, 1989, DOT caused to be filed against the two signs notices that neither sign had the permit required by law and that the zoning for the location of the signs did not permit outdoor advertising signs. Respondents have not contested the method by which the notices were posted. Mr. Hare, on behalf of his businesses, filed a timely demand for formal hearing following his receipt of the notices of violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order which finds that permits required by law have not been issued for the subject signs, that the signs are in a location that is ineligible for permitting because of its zoning, and which orders the immediate removal of the subject signs. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 f Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES 89-6103T AND 89-61O4T The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Department of Transportation: 1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. 2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. 3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. 4. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. 5. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Rivers Buford, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mr. William Hare Owner, The Steakery Owner, Sugarloaf Leisure Club Post Office Box 723 Summerland Key, Florida 33042 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bulding 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
