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
Findings Of Fact On September 1, 1981, 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 1.62 miles east of SR 69S in Jackson 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 by Harry Fuqua that he would find a business called Branch's Garage there. He found a house with a tin farm-type building like a barn in the back. Inside this tin barn were some tools and welding equipment. There was a sign on the door stating the business hours, and another sign on the side of this tin building stating the name Branch's Garage. None of this was visible from I-10, however; all that could be seen from the interstate was the roof of the residence and part of the tin barn; there was no indication to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity was being conducted at this location. The inspector's supervisor and the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator both visited the site prior to approval of the subject permit. The supervisor had also been told that he would find a business known as Branch's Garage there, and he was looking for it. At the site he observed what appeared to be a garage and some work being done. This could not be seen from I-10, and from the interstate he could not see anything that would indicate to traffic that a garage was at this location. The Respondent's representative, Harry Fuqua, admits that no business activity was visible from I-10, and that there was nothing to indicate to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity was being conducted at this location. The site where Branch's Garage is located cannot be reached from I-10 directly. It would have to be approached from one of the side roads after traffic had exited the interstate. Based upon his inspection of the site, coupled with the Respondent's representation that a business called Branch's Garage existed there, the inspector approved the Respondent's application for a sign permit. Thereafter, both the supervisor and the Right-of-Way Administrator also approved the application. The permit was issued on or about September 8, 1981, because of the proximity of the proposed site to the nearby business known as Branch's Garage which had been observed by the inspector, his supervisor, and the Right- of-Way Administrator. Subsequently, after the permit had been issued, the Respondent erected its sign which is the subject of this proceeding. In late 1984 and early 1985 there was no business activity at the subject site and there continues to be nothing there to indicate to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity exists at this location. 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 AF191-10 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 C. 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 The Respondent, E. A. Hancock Advertising, Inc., erected two double face outdoor advertising signs in June, 1975, in an unincorporated part of Broward County, Florida, without first obtaining a permit from the Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation. Two of the signs face north and two signs face south. Each sign structure has two faces. After erection the Respondents applied for permits but permits were refused by Petitioner and violation notices dated October 22, 1975, were sent to Respondents indicating that Respondent was in violation of the outdoor advertising laws by erecting signs without permits and erecting "two separate signs erected illegally (which] can be seen from 1-95." After much correspondence between the parties, the matter was set-for hearing November 9, 1976, was thereafter continued and finally heard on July 12, 1977, more than two years after the erection of the signs. The signs were constructed on a county secondary road known as Ravenwood Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and more definitely located as "south from 3497 Ravenwood Road. The road is one lane in each direction and is the type of road usually known as a service road. The billboard signs are elevated to a height of approximately 25 feet from the ground to the top of the sign and sit back about 15 feet from the secondary road. Although the signs can easily be read by travelers on Ravenwood Road, signs designed primarily to serve this two lane road would as a practical matter have been much smaller and much closer to the ground and the message would have had smaller letters. The signs are a "visual overkill" for travelers on Ravenwood Road. See "Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1" and the Polaroid pictures taken from Ravenwood Road. The signs are elevated to less than 25 feet above 1-95. One sign is about 190 feet from the south lane of the interstate highway and the other about 191 feet from the south lane of the highway. Both signs are on the west side of the interstate highway. The two sign structures are approximately 300 feet apart. One sign is approximately 500 feet from an existing sign and the other is approximately 850 feet from an existing sign. The large size lettering on the large signs are clearly visible to the motoring public on interstate highway 1-95. Three of the four signs are visible and can easily be read by motorists going either north or south on the interstate highway. Evidence is unclear as to whether one side of one of the double space signs is clearly visible from the interstate highway. Copy on the signs is changed from time to time, but at the time the pictures entered into evidence were taken from the interstate highway, copy read, "WHITEHALL PRESTIGE LIQUORS A GREAT VODKA" and "HOLSUM Baked just right for you." The advertising is large and can be read in the Polaroid snapshots that were taken by Petitioner while on the interstate highway and entered in the record as "Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1." Application for sign permits was made June 16, 1975 to the Broward County Planning, Building and Zoning Department. Permits were issued by the county and were affixed to the signs. The Hearing Officer further finds: The subject signs were constructed primarily to be read by the public traveling on the interstate highway. The size of the signs, the size of the lettering, the elevation of the signs and the angle of the signs provide insurance that messages can be easily read by those traveling on the interstate. The traffic on the interstate is much heavier than traffic on Ravenwood Road. The Petitioner contends that the Respondent is in violation of outdoor advertising laws: No permit was applied for or granted before the outdoor advertising signs were constructed by Respondent. The signs were constructed primarily to be read by the public traveling on 1-95, an interstate highway. The setback of tho Respondent's signs is less than 660 feet from the interstate highway. The signs should be removed as violating the state statutes as well as the federal code laws, rules and regulations contained in the "Highway Beautification Act." Broward County has not submitted to the administrator of the state evidence that it has established effective control with regard to size, spacing, height and lighting requirements contrary to the agreement of the Governor authorized by Section 479.02. Broward County does not enforce any outdoor advertising requirements even if it could be shown the zoning was in compliance with Title 1 of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and Title 23, U.S. Code as required by Section 479.02 and the agreement executed pursuant thereto. Respondent contends that: It secured permits from Broward County and attached them to the subject signs. Broward County had zoned the area M-3 and that it is a commercial zone. The signs were erected primarily to be read by the public traveling on Ravenwood Road. There are no spacing requirements of a thousand feet between advertising signs under the Florida law and that even if there were they had not been formerly charged with violating spacing requirements. Public Law 89-285, passed by the 89th Congress of the United States on October 22, 1965, allowed the states and the federal government to agree to set-back for signs nearer than 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right of way in areas zomed industrial or commercial. The agreement between the Governor and the federal government made provisions for local governments to regulate size, lighting and spacing requirements. That in fact the ratification of the Governor's Agreenent under Section 479.02 is not the enactment of a law. The Petitioner has in fact issued permits to others after signs have been constructed and should issue a permit for subject signs to Respondent. At the subject hearing the attorneys for both parties indicated that they desired to submit a Memorandum of Law but neither party submitted a memorandum.
Recommendation Require the Respondent to remove its signs within thirty (30) days from the date of the Final Order. Invoke the penalties of Section 479.18 for violation of Chapter 479. The Department of Transportation has ample enforcement power to remove the signs under Section 479.02 aside from the agreement: Brazil v. Division of Administration, 347 So.2d 755. See also Section 335.13 which states in part: "(1) No person shall erect any billboard or advertisement adjacent to the right-of-way of the state highway system, outside the corporate limits of any city or town, except as provided for in chapter 479." DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert D. Korner, Esquire 4790 Tamiami Trail W. 8th Street Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Findings Of Fact The sign which is the subject of this proceeding was cited for violations of the Florida statutes and rules regulating outdoor advertising structures by notice of violation dated November 3, 1983, and served on the Respondent as owner of this sign. The subject sign is located on the north side of Interstate 10, 1.6 miles east of State Road 267, in Gadsden County, Florida. This structure is an outdoor sign, or display, or device, or figure, or painting, or drawing, or message, or placard, or poster, or billboard, or other thing, designed, intended or used to advertise or inform with all or part of its advertising or informative content visible from the main traveled way of Interstate 10. The structure is located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the pavement of Interstate 10, as alleged in the violation notice dated November 3, 1983. The structure was located outside any incorporated city or town on the date it was built. The structure was not located in a commercial or industrial zoned or unzoned area on the date it was built. The structure was constructed, or erected, without a currently valid permit issued by the Department of Transportation; it was operated, used, or maintained without such a permit; and a Department of Transportation outdoor advertising permit has never been issued for the subject structure. The structure does not fall within any of the exceptions listed in Section 479.16, Florida Statutes. The structure was located adjacent to and visible from the main traveled way of a roadway open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic in the State of Florida at the time it was built. The structure had affixed the copy or message as shown on the notice of violation when it was issued; namely, Texaco Next Exit Turn Left - Food Store. Hinson Oil Company is the owner of the sign or structure which is the subject of this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the sign owned by the Respondent, Hinson Oil Company, located on the north side of Interstate 10, 1.6 miles east of State Road 267, in Gadsden County, Florida, be removed. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Horns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Fl. 32301-8064 Mr. E. W. Hinson, Jr. Hinson Oil Company P O. Box 448 Quincy, Florida 32351 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 August, 1984. Paul Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns the sign located on the west side of and adjacent to U.S. Highway 331, approximately 5.5 miles north of the intersection of U.S. Highway 331 and U.S. Highway 90 in Walton County, Florida. The sign advertises a motel owned by Petitioner. The sign is important to the motel's business. The sign is required to have an outdoor advertising sign permit. U.S. Highway 331 is a Federal Aid Primary Highway and was a Federal Aid Primary Highway prior to the sign's erection. Walton County is operating under a duly adopted comprehensive plan. However, the State of Florida has not fully approved such plan and Walton County has not yet entered into a compliance agreement with the State in regards to its comprehensive plan. Pursuant to its comprehensive plan, Walton County utilizes a method of zoning known as "performance zoning", as opposed to the traditional "euclidian zoning". Performance zoning has specific regulations and restrictions for each type of use, and each type of use has to meet certain criteria. In essence, performance zoning allows mixed uses of certain zones within the county. Different areas of the county have different requirements regarding the development of such use in order to safeguard the integrity of the zoning plan. The specific area where the sign is located allows for commercial, industrial and residential use and is permitted by the zoning scheme of Walton County. In a general sense, residential as well as commercial and industrial use is allowed in all of the areas of Walton County north of U.S. Highway 90. This area constitutes approximately one-half of the county. However, zones contained within the areas of Walton County north of U.S. Highway 90 may differ in the circumstances and criteria of the zoning plan under which such uses would be permitted. Even though Walton County was comprehensively zoned, Respondent's previous administration treated Walton County as if it did not have zoning. Therefore, Respondent would have previously permitted the sign in question. However Respondent changed its treatment of Walton County because it had been cited by the Federal Highway Administration for its lax interpretation of zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas within the counties. The Federal Highway Administration threatened to withdraw federal highway monies if the Department did not begin to follow the language in its statutes and rules defining zoned and unzoned areas. The clear language of the Respondent's statutes and rules governing the permitting of outdoor advertising signs, as well as the threatened action of the Federal Highway Administration demonstrate the reasonableness of and the factual basis for the Department's change in its interpretation of zoned and unzoned areas within a county. In this case, it is clear that the sign is located in a zoned area and not in an unzoned area. The area in which the sign is located is not zoned commercial or industrial. The area is zoned for mixed use according to the performance zoning utilized by Walton County. Since the sign is not in an area zoned commercial or industrial, the sign is not permittable under Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for a permit to maintain a sign located on the west side of U.S. Highway 331, approximately 5.5 miles north of the intersection of U.S. Highway 331 and U.S. Highway 90 in Walton County, Florida, be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 5th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 12 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order were not shown by the evidence. The fact contained in paragraph 11 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order are immaterial. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 13 and 14 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended order are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: William K. Jennings 119 E. Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the sign erected by J.C. Tropical Foods, Inc., (Respondent) on land it leased for this purpose along State Road 997 in Dade County, Florida, was in violation of state law and, if so, whether the removal of said sign was required.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent leased a parcel of land along State Road 997 in Dade County, Florida, for the purpose of erecting a sign to direct truckers to its packing house. The Respondent owns certain real property on which its packing house is located, but that property is approximately 1320 feet from State Road 997, and 1200 feet from the leased parcel. If a sign were erected on the property owned by the Respondent, it could not be seen from State Road 997. After leasing the subject parcel, the Respondent proceeded to erect its 4 foot by 6 foot sign at a height of 45 feet. The sign was located approximately 18 feet from the State Road 997 right-of-way, and was visible from State Road 997. The sign was inspected by the Petitioner's outdoor advertising inspector and found to have no state sign permit attached to it. A notice of violation was, therefore, affixed to the sign on behalf of the Petitioner on or about May 30, 1990, and thereafter the sign was removed. State Road 997 in Dade County, Florida, has been designated a federal- aid primary road. The Respondent's sign was located on a leased parcel that was zoned AU, Agricultural District. The sign was not located on the business premises of the sign owner. A timely demand for formal hearing was filed on behalf of the Respondent following its receipt of the notice of violation, resulting in this formal proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order which finds that the permit required by law was not issued for the Respondent's sign, that the sign was in a location that is ineligible for permitting because of its zoning, and which confirms the removal of the subject sign. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3897T Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Findings 1, 2 and 5. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Julian L. Mesa, Secretary J.C. Tropical Foods, Inc. 2937 S.W. 27th Avenue, #305 Miami, FL 33133 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact In 1976 an outdoor advertising company named Outdoor Media applied to the Department to have permits issued for a sign that had been built in 1971 on the north side of I-4, 1.42 miles west of U.S. 17/92/441 (Orange Blossom Trail) inside the city limits of Orlando. Permit numbers 2259-12 and 2260-12 were issued by the Department to Outdoor Media for the west face and the east face of this sign. In 1978 the Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising, Inc., purchased this sign from Outdoor Media. A request for replacement tags was made and granted, and tag number 2259-12 was replaced by 7553-12, and tag number 2260-12 was replaced by 7554- In April of 1984 the Respondent again requested replacement tags, and tag number 7553-12 was replaced by AM 267-12, and tag number AM 7554-12 was replaced by AM 268-12. Sometime after April, 1984, this sign was removed, and the Respondent erected a new sign, a monopole, at a location on the north side of I-4, 1.5 miles west of U.S. 17/92/441 (Orange Blossom Trail). This is approximately 200 feet west of the place where the old sign had been located. The Respondent affixed tag numbers AM 267-12 and AM 268- 12 to the new monopole structure, but these tags were not issued for this sign. They had been issued for the old sign which was removed. The city limits of Orlando are such that the location of the new monopole is outside the city; while the location where the old sign had been was inside the city limits. The county allows a taller sign than may be built inside the City of Orlando, and the Respondent wanted to enhance the visibility of its sign by raising its height. The Respondent obtained a variance from Orange County to extend the height of the monopole sign to a total of 65 feet. The monopole sign at 1.5 miles west of U.S. 17/92/441 percents adjacent to the ramp leading onto I-4 and is less than 1,000 feet from the nearest permitted sign. The distance between these signs is 898 feet as measured by the Department's inspector using a measuring wheel. The Department's inspector has more than 11 years of experience. He has measured signs, sites and locations over 1,000 times. He is familiar with the state and federal requirements for calculating point to point measurements between signs, and he followed them in making the measurements in this case. The Department's inspector measured the distance between the Respondent's new monopole and the nearest permitted sign three times with the same result. Be ran the measuring wheel along the right-of-way of I-4 at right angles to the two signs. Five of the Respondent's witnesses also measured the distance between these signs with results ranging from 955 feet to 1,016 feet. However, none of these witnesses had any experience in making measurements between signs pursuant to state and federal requirements, and some of these distances were obtained by measuring along the ramp instead of along the side of the highway. Thus, the testimony of the Department's inspector is found to be the credible evidence supporting the finding that the two subject signs are 898 feet apart. The Department's evidence relative to when the new monopole was erected is vague and imprecise, and thus not of sufficient quality to support a finding of fact on this issue. The Respondent presented evidence to show that the monopole was erected in April of 1984, and it contends that it applied for the county variance in preparation for relocation and reconstruction of this sign. However, the Respondent's evidence that the monopole was erected in April of 1984 is self-serving, and not corroborated. Even the variance notice indicates that it was applied for on October 4, 1984. Thus there is likewise insufficient credible evidence to support the Respondent's contention relative to when this sign was actually constructed. Nevertheless, the Respondent erected its new monopole structure at the point on the north side of I-4, 1.5 miles west of U.S. 17/92/441, without having first obtained a state sign permit for this location. The Respondent's manager and its president both admit that tags numbered AM 267-12 and AM 268-12 were issued for the sign at 1.42 miles west of U.S. 17/92/441. Peterson Outdoor Advertising is a licensed outdoor advertising company. The firm's manager has been in the business for 27 years. The company president has been engaged in the business of outdoor advertising for more than 25 years, and he claims to have a familiarity with the law. From these facts, and from all inferences that can be drawn therefrom, there is not sufficient evidence to support a finding that this experienced outdoor advertising company was misled into moving its sign 200 feet westward without a permit by the Department's approval of its request for replacement tags for the old sign structure.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's sign on the north side of I-4, 1.5 miles west of U.S. 17/92/441, in Orange County, Florida, be removed. And it is RECOMMENDED that permits numbered AM 267-12 and AM 268-12 be REVOKED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 26th day of February, 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 26th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Finding of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Replacement tags are not outdoor advertising sign permits. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence, or irrelevant. Last sentence is accepted. Rejected as irrelevant. Lost tag application is not an application for outdoor advertising sign permit. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial intent. Rejected as irrelevant, except for raising the height of the sign to 65 feet which is accepted. Rejected as irrelevant or not supported by competent substantial evidence, except for the granting of a variance and the building permit which are accepted. Rejected, as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected, as not supported by competent substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32801-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 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 Jefferson County has established comprehensive zoning for the county pursuant to its Development Code which became effective on April 1, 1983. This code provides a system of land use regulation which includes comprehensive zoning of commercial uses by a category called "Site Particularly Suited for Economic Activity." The commercial zone allows for one of three types of employment centers, namely, Type 1-5, Type 6-20, and Type 21, which are commercial enterprises or firms distinguished by the number of employees in a building or group of buildings at a particular location. Type 6-20 and Type 21 employment centers are only allowed in a "Site Particularly Suited for Economic Activity." Section 1 of Article 25 of this code allows outdoor advertising visible from an arterial highway to be located in one of the "Sites Particularly Suited for Economic Activity" as defined in Article 26. Section 2 of Article 26 of the code states that Economic Activity refers to Type 6-20 and Type 21 employment centers. The Petitioner, by its application for outdoor advertising permits, seeks to erect signs on the south side of I-10, .6 mile west of State Road 59 in Jefferson County, facing east and west. This site is in a Type 1-5 employment center, not a Type 6-20 or a Type 21 employment center, as required by Article 26 of the code. This site is also within 660 feet of the right-of-way of Interstate 10. It is without commercial activity, and is vacant land at the present time. On May 7, 1984, the Petitioner made an application to the Jefferson County Planning Commission for a change of land use, or variance, and listed as its purpose "Outdoor Advertising." On July 12, 1984, the Jefferson County Planning Commission approved the variance as applied for on the property which is the subject of this proceeding. Thereafter, on September 11, 1984, the Petitioner applied with the Department of Transportation for outdoor advertising permits at the subject location. This application was denied by the Department on September 13, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Seminole Inns, Inc., for permits to erect outdoor advertising signs on the south side of Interstate 10, .6 mile west of State Road 59 in Jefferson County, Florida, facing east and west, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 22nd day of March, 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 22nd day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell C. Madigan, Esquire David D. Eastman, Esquire P. O. Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
