Findings Of Fact By notice of alleged violation dated January 19, 1979, the Department charged that the Respondent, Chevron, U.S.A., installed a sign on 1-4, 23.86 miles east of U.S. 301, without a permit in violation of Rule 14-10.04, Florida Administrative Code. The notice also alleged that the sign was too close to an off ramp of 1-4, in violation of Title 23, Section 13, U.S. Code Para. 2(B). The parties stipulated that the sign is located along 1-4, a part of the Federal Interstate Highway Systems which was open to vehicular traffic in 1959-1960 and that the sign is located in the unincorporated area of Polk County. On or about October 22, 1969, the Respondent contracted with Pickett and Associates, of Tampa1 Florida, a general contractor, to construct a complete operating service station at 1-4 and SR 35-A. Included in the contract price was the cost of constructing the sign in question. An engineer for Chevron, J. L. Edgar, requested on June 4, 1969, that Pickett and Associates proceed to obtain all permits prior to construction. Due to no direct fault of the Respondent, the necessary permits to install the sign were never obtained from the Department. This fact was discovered when a sign inspector noticed the sign to be in poor condition and in need of repair. The contractor who erected the sign was contacted regarding the permits but all records relating to this particular job have been discarded. Chevron was unaware that the sign was never permitted until the notice was issued by the Department. The sign is located within five hundred (500) feet of the exit ramp off 1-4 to Kathleen Road (SR 35-A) , as measured from the spot where the road widens to the exit. No evidence was submitted to show that the sign was on the same property of the station or within one hundred (100) feet thereof.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's sign be found in violation of Rule 14- 10.06(1)(b)(2)(b) , Florida Administrative Code and Section 479.07, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of August, 1980. in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. A. Scott Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. 3908 10th Avenue Tampa, Florida 33605 Charles Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On May 16, 1983 the Department received in its district office in Chipley, Florida, the Respondent's application for a permit to erect an outdoor advertising sign adjacent to I-10, approximately 3.5 miles west of S.R. 81 in Walton County, Florida. This permit application stated that the location requested was in a commercial or industrial area within 800 feet of a business. The Department's outdoor advertising inspector visited the site after having reviewed the Respondent's application and being told that he would find a nursery business there. He found a small building with dimensions of approximately 8-10 feet wide, 10-12 feet long, and 7-8 feet high. He observed some plants both inside and outside this building. These plants did not appear to have been grown there. Nearby was a brick residence, a shed and more plants near the shed. After talking with a lady on the premises, he determined that she was in the business of selling plants. From I-10 the brick residence building could be seen, but the plants were not visible and it could not be determined from the interstate what activity there was inside the building or at this location. Based upon his inspection of the site, coupled with the Respondent's representation that a nursery business existed there, the inspector approved the Respondent's application for a sign permit. The permit was issued on or about June 8, 1983 because of the proximity of the proposed site to a nearby commercial activity which was the nursery business observed by the inspector. Subsequently, after the permit had been issued, the Respondent erected its sign which is the subject of this proceeding. In March of 1985 there was no business activity at the subject site. There were no longer any flowers or plants situated at this location. The terrain slopes upward from the interstate at the site of the Respondent's sign, so that nothing was visible from the interstate that would indicate any commercial activity was being conducted at this location, either at the time when the permit was issued or presently. The Respondent through its agent Harry Fuqua, submitted the application for the subject permit, and designated thereon that the proposed location was in an unzoned commercial area within 800 feet of a business. This application also certified that the sign to be erected met all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit number AJ353-10 held by Fuqua & Davis, Inc., be revoked, and the sign which was erected pursuant to this permit be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 11th 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 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 James J. Richardson, Esquire P. O. Box 12669 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2669 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On September 23, 1979, the Department issued to the Respondent, Chipley Motel, permit number 9028-6 authorizing an outdoor advertising sign on the south side of I-10, .8 mile west of SR 77 in Washington County, Florida. This permit was issued pursuant to an application that had been filed by a representative of the Respondent which stated that the site where the sign would be erected was zoned commercial or industrial. The Respondent's representative filed this application containing the statement that the proposed site was zoned commercial or industrial without first checking with county officials to determine the zoning status of the site. Upon receipt of the Respondent's application, Department personnel at the Chipley District Office made inquiry of county officials and were informed that the site applied for by the Respondent was zoned commercial. Thereafter, the Department's district office personnel advised the Respondent that they had ascertained the subject site to be commercially zoned, and permit number 9028-6 was issued. Both the Respondent's representative and the Department's district office personnel believed the proposed sign site was zoned commercial. However, the site applied for by the Respondent, and where permit number 9028-6 authorized a sign to be erected, was not zoned commercial or industrial either when the application was submitted or when the permit was issued. Pursuant to the issuance of permit number 9028-6, the Respondent erected an outdoor advertising sign at the permitted location. This sign was taken down sometime between September of 1979 and July of 1985. Permit number 9028-6 which had been issued for this sign on I-10, .8 mile west of SR 77 was affixed to another sign located 250-300 feet from the permitted site. Sometime after July 31, 1985, a different sign was erected at the location on I-10, .8 mile west of SR 77, and permit number 9028-6 was affixed to this sign. Therefore, permit number 9028-6 had been used on two signs at two different locations before it was reapplied to the sign that now stands on the permitted site. The sign that is up now is not the sign for which permit number 9028-6 was issued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that permit number 9028-6 held by Chipley Motel, for a sign on the south side of I-10, .8 mile west of SR 77 in Washington County, Florida, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 13th day of March, 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 13th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 James J. Richardson, Esquire P. O. Box 12669 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2669 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Union Street at its intersection with Jefferson Avenue in Jacksonville, Florida, is also known as US 23 and is a federal-aid primary highway. It is a one-way street for east-bound traffic and is located within the corporate limits of Jacksonville. The proposed sign would be located on the north side of Union Street 20 feet west of the intersection with Jefferson Street and would face west to be viewed by the eastbound traffic on Union Street. Zoning at the proposed location is commercial/industrial. Criterion Advertising Company has been issued permits for two signs near the intersection of Union Street and Jefferson Avenue (Exhibits 5 and 6). These signs are on the south side of a building on the northeast corner of this intersection, thus making them parallel to Union Street 14 feet and 20 feet respectively east of the Jefferson Avenue pavement. Jefferson Avenue is not a federal-aid primary highway. In their inventory the Department of Transportation (DOT) carries the Criterion signs as facing westerly because they can be seen by the eastbound traffic on US 23. There are only four blocks on an application for a sign permit in which to mark the direction in which the sign faces. These are the four cardinal points of the compass. Highways in Florida, as well as the streets in most cities in Florida, run generally in a north/south or east/west direction. Signs alongside a federal-aid primary highway that are intended to be seen by northbound traffic are carried in DOT inventory as southerly facing signs whether they actually face in a southerly compass direction or not. Advertising signs, the face of which are parallel to the highway from which they are viewed, are not as saleable as are signs at right angles, or nearly so, to the highway.
Findings Of Fact On March 2, 1984, the Petitioner, Pensacola Outdoor Advertising, applied for a permit to locate an outdoor advertising sign on the west side of U.S. 29, .1 mile south of Hope Drive, facing south, in Escambia County, Florida. This location is outside the city limits of Pensacola. I-10 and U.S. 29 intersect in the area where the Petitioner proposes to locate its sign. This site is 26.5 feet from the limited access fence or right of way boundary in the northwest quadrant of the interchange area where I-10 and U.S. 29 intersect. The south side of the structure for which the permit is sought is directly adjacent to this limited access fence, which is next to an off-ramp from I-10 to U.S. 29. The proposed sign site is visible to traffic on the main-traveled way of I-10 and to traffic on the interchange ramps.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Pensacola Outdoor Advertising for a permit to locate an outdoor advertising sign on U.S. 29, .1 mile south of Hope Drive, facing south, in Escambia County, Florida, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 24th 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 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1985.
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 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 A Department of Transportation (DOT) Outdoor Advertising Inspector was doing an inventory, during May, 1987, on U.S. 231, in Jackson County, Florida, when he observed a sign that was visible from the main traveled way of the highway that was not on the sign inventory as being permitted. U.S. 231 is a federal-aid primary highway. The location is 1.78 miles south of SR 73, on the west side of U.S. 231, (southbound side ), and is 32 feet from the right edge of the southbound lane (U.S. 231). The restaurant the sign is advertising is located to the south of the sign, on the east side of U.S. 231, (northbound side). Mr. and Mrs. Cintron purchased the restaurant in October, 1985, and considered subject sign part of the business. The sign in question was erected during the summer of 1985 by the original owner. The Department's Inspector certified that said sign was removed by 6/11/87. There is one business, within 800 feet of the sign site, on the west side, a Gulf station that contains a convenience store and tire store in the same building on the same premises. The sign site is located in an unzoned area within the city limits of Cottondale, Florida. There is a repair business on the west side of the highway and a septic tank business on the east side of the highway. Both businesses are north and in excess of 1600 feet from the site in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order finding that the sign in question located on U.S. 231, 1.78 miles south of SR 73 East, in Jackson County, Florida, was in violation of the statutes for not having a state sign permit, was properly removed, and does not qualify for issuance of a permit. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2242T The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DOT's proposed findings of fact 1-3 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1-3. COPIES FURNISHED: Kaye N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Eva F. Cintron, Pro Se Post Office Box 56 Cottondale, Florida 32431 Vernon Whittier, Jr., Esquire Rivers Buford, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
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 Respondent is the owner of a sign located alongside I-4 25.03 miles east of U.S. 301 (Exhibit 2). This sign is located outside the city limits of Lakeland, Florida, and is within ten feet of the beginning of the transition of pavement going to the off ramp from the I-4. When inspected in September, 1978, the sign did not have a permit affixed thereto and the records of Petitioner do not indicate this sign has ever been permitted. In 1978 the panels on this sign read "Hilton Inn." When inspected on 25 October 1982, the photograph (Exhibit 1) was taken. This photo shows the panels are missing and the Hilton Inn message does not appear.
