The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is entitled to a sign permit for a location on Fairbanks Avenue facing Interstate 4, and whether the sign which has been erected at that location is in violation of applicable provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is authorized pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, to regulate outdoor advertising signs. The Respondent owns or controls an outdoor advertising sign (subject sign) located on Fairbanks Avenue which faces I 4 and which is 480 feet from the centerline of I 4. The sign face and direction of the subject sign are visible from I 4 following that route as it is normally traveled, i.e. on the main-traveled way. The subject sign is no more than 480 feet from the interchange at Fairbanks and I 4. The subject sign was erected in June, 1979, when SR 424 was not designated a federal aid primary road and a state permit was not required. On May 17, 1979, the Department's then district sign coordinator issued a letter to Respondent in response to Creative Media's sign permit application which provided that "a state permit is not required at this time." (e.s.) The Respondent's application in 1979 specified that the sign location was not within city limits which is presumed true for purposes of this record. Further, the 1979 application specified that the sign would be located .1 of a mile (presumably 528 feet) from the intersection. That description of the proposed sign is also presumed true. Subsequently, Fairbanks became a part of the state highway system and a requirement for outdoor advertising permits for signs erected along that roadway became effective. The sign face for which the present permit is sought is within 500 feet of the I 4 interchange. On January 30, 1990, Inspector Dollery photographed the subject sign which contained the following verbiage: "ENRICH YOUR LIFE. Barclay Place Rental Apartments at Heathrow". When Inspector Dollery visited the location on January 3 and 4, 1991, the sign face was painted white with only a telephone number (425-5100) depicted. On February 5, 1990, the Department's current district outdoor advertising administrator issued a notice of alleged violation regarding the subject sign. On February 26, 1990, the Respondent filed an application for a permit for the sign face in dispute. The 1990 application acknowledged that the sign was 480 feet from the I 4 intersection. The Department returned the application as not meeting the spacing requirements for signs facing I 4 and for being less than 500 feet from the interchange. POA Acquisition, an outdoor advertising company, holds permits for signs located on I 4 which are within 1500 feet of the subject sign.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order finding the subject sign in violation of the rule as set forth in the notice of alleged violations dated February 5, 1990, and denying the permit application of the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-2193T RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: The six unnumbered paragraphs are addressed in the order presented. The first paragraph is accepted. The second paragraph is accepted. The first sentence of the third paragraph is accepted. The second sentence of the third paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence or irrelevant if intended to establish that a DOT official told Mr. Fekete to retain paperwork. The fourth paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. If the sign had been constructed as represented on the application, the fifth paragraph could be accepted; however, Respondent did not build the sign as stated in the 1979 application nor can it be determined from this record whether the spacing requirements along I 4 could have been met in 1979. Certainly, for a sign facing on Fairbanks, the spacing requirements could have been met. The distance from the interchange is ultimately why Respondent's application would have failed in 1979 if accurately requested. Consequently, as drafted, the fifth paragraph must be rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The sixth paragraph is accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Gerald S. Livingston Kreuter & Livingston, P.A. 200 East Robinson Street Suite 1150 Orlando, Florida 32801 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S.58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether respondent's initial proposal to deny petitioner's application for a permit to construct an outdoor advertising sign had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it occurred or was otherwise substantially justified; or, if not, whether special circumstances would make an award of costs and fees unjust?
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1988, petitioner proposed to erect a sign facing east, within 15 feet of an existing outdoor advertising sign, on the north side of State Road 200, approximately .6 miles west of the intersection of State Road 200 and I-75. He planned to place a single face at such an angle to the existing, single-faced sign that a V configuration would result. Another outdoor advertising company held a permit for the existing sign, which faced west. It stood on property belonging to a land owner who did not own the property to the east on which Ray proposed to raise its sign. On November 10, 1988, the Department of Transportation issued a notice of intent to deny petitioner's application for a permit to construct the outdoor advertising sign. Petitioner reasonably incurred attorneys' fees of $787.50 and costs of $28.00 before Department of Transportation decided, well after the evidentiary hearing held April 5, 1989, to issue the permit, after all. As far as the record reveals, the Department has faced only one other situation in which an applicant for a permit to construct a sign, within 15 feet of an existing sign, proposed to build on property not owned by the land owner who had leased to the company which had built the existing sign, viz., Ad-Con Outdoor Advertising v. Department of Transportation, No. 89- 0087T. In that case, too, the Department issued a permit for the second sign. In an internal memorandum dated February 17, 1989, respondent's Rivers Buford wrote Dallas Gray, while the Ad-Con application was pending, the following: Inasmuch as the proposed sign would be within fifteen feet of another sign it would, by virtue of the provisions of Rule Chapter 14-10.1006(1)(b)3, be considered a part of a V-type sign and thus its two faces would be exempt from the minimum spacing requirements of Section 479.07, F.S. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. The memorandum antedated the final hearing in Case No. 88-6107 by more than six weeks. Presumably, the intended rule reference was to Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code. At the hearing in the present case, the Department of Transportation produced two witnesses to explain why the Department initially turned down petitioner's application. In their view, the Department of Transportation should never have granted petitioner's application, in order to protect rights vested in the other company, particularly a purported, preemptive right the other company had, by virtue of the location of its existing sign, to build another sign where Ray proposed to build, even though the other company did not own and had not leased the site Ray applied to build on. They asserted not only that the Department was substantially justified in turning down petitioner's application when it was originally considered, but also that any other similar application should be turned down. In their opinion, the Department erred in issuing permits in both cases in which the question has arisen. They attributed the eventual issuance of permits to petitioner and in the Ad-Con case to misinformed and misguided departmental employees. As authority for this view, Mr. Kissinger, respondent's Motorist Information Services Coordinator, cited Sections 479.07(9)(a) and 479.01(14), Florida Statutes (1989) and Rule 14-10.006(b)(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent's sign permits should be revoked on the basis that the permit location is not within an unzoned commercial or industrial area as required by the foregoing provisions of the statutes and rules.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 8, 1982, Branch's Outdoor Advertising filed applications for two sign permits to allow erection of an outdoor advertising sign in Jackson County, Florida. The sign is located on the north side of I-10 approximately 1.92 miles east of State Road 69. The sites applied for were field-inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, were approved and the Department issued the permits numbered AI33-10 and AI34-10 for the requested location. When the entity known as Branch's Outdoor Advertising submitted the application for the permits, it designated thereon that the proposed location was in a commercial or industrial unzoned area within 800 feet of a business and that the signs to be erected would meet the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The business which is located within 800 feet of the Respondent's sign is known as "Branch's Garage" Branch's Garage is located in a large tin shed which is used as a storage shed for farm equipment by Mr. Branch. Mr. Branch is a farmer as well as the operator of the welding and automotive repair business which is located in that same tin building. A portion of that building is visible from the main traveled way of Interstate 10. Branch's Garage is the only business located within 800 feet of the Respondent's-sign. Mr. Branch maintains two signs on or in the vicinity of his building advertising Branch's Garage and Welding Shop. The signs and the parked cars and vehicles associated with the business are, in part, visible from I-10. Mr. Jack Culpepper, the Petitioner's "Right-of-Way Administrator", was given the specific assignment of attempting to "reestablish effective control of outdoor advertising in the third district" in approximately the Summer of 1983. Mr. Culpepper had no direct knowledge of and had not inspected the vicinity of the sign in question prior to that time. In 1984, shortly before the Notice to Show Cause in question was issued, Mr. Culpepper did inspect the area and arrived at the belief that no commercial activity was occurring at the site known as Branch's Garage. Mr. Culpepper acknowledged that during his inspection, while driving down Interstate 10 in the vicinity, might not have noticed commercial activity which might have been going on at Branch's Garage. Mr. Culpepper acknowledged that, outdoor advertising regulatory personnel in the third district had adopted a more strict enforcement policy and interpretation. of the foregoing legal authority at issue in 1984 than had been the case in 1982 when the sign was permitted. In essence, that change in interpretation embodied a policy of not permitting, or seeking to revoke, permits for signs for unzoned commercial activity areas or locations when the commercial activity upon which the permits were predicated was not visible from the main traveled way of I-10, as opposed to the situation in 1982 whereby permits were issued if a commercial activity was present within 800 feet of a sign, without consideration of whether the commercial activity was visible from I-10. Mr. Branch conducted his welding and auto repair business known as Branch's Garage during the time in question in 1982 when the permits were issued at the site in question (the tin building). He also was conducting that activity during 1984 including the time when the Notice to Show Cause was issued. Mr. Branch is a farmer and uses the tin building in question for both businesses. Mr. Branch derives a part of his livelihood from the automobile repair and welding business. The on-premise signs located at Branch's Garage are visible from I-10. The applications for the outdoor advertising permit submitted by Branch's Outdoor Advertising were subjected to a field inspection as to the proposed site by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector on October 13, 1982. That inspector had been employed by the Department for some twelve years at the time. In connection with his duties involving enforcement of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14.10, Florida Administrative Code, he had adopted a basic procedure for inspection of sign sites applied-for, which included actual inspection of the proposed site and, if the proposed site was in an unzoned area, ascertaining that there was an unzoned commercial activity present within 800 feet of the sign site. The inspector had made prior inspections of the site. As a result of those prior inspections he had already issued permits to another sign company authorizing the erection of a sign within the same vicinity based upon the unzoned commercial activity known as Branch's Welding and Garage. Based upon his field inspection in connection with the Branch's Outdoor Advertising applications in question, this inspector approved the applications, resulting in the issuance of the permits in question. The inspector had not been provided with rules or guidelines which would assist him in identifying and determining whether a commercial activity was present at the time of his inspection. He was required to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis, given the relevant statutory provisions, his experience, and instructions by his superiors, as to what would qualify as a commercial activity. Based upon the activities he observed being conducted at Branch's Welding and Garage, he concluded that there was sufficient legal basis for issuance of the permits. Upon issuance of the outdoor advertising sign permits to Branch's Outdoor Advertising, Mr. Branch erected a sign on his property which was improperly located and violated the spacing requirements between it and a sign known as the "Fuqua sign" which had previously been erected within the vicinity of his business. The incorrect location of Branch's sign created an enforcement problem for the Department's outdoor advertising personnel. In order to resolve that conflict with Mr. Branch, the owner of Branch's Outdoor Advertising, the inspector took an agent and representative from Tri-State Systems, Inc., Mr. Matt Fellows, to the site and identified the permits for Mr. Branch's sign as being legal permits. The inspector advised Matt Fellows that the sign was improperly located and suggested that Tri-State purchase Mr. Branch's permits and build a properly located sign at that vicinity location for which the permits had originally been issued. Based upon the information and suggestion from the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, the Respondent contacted Mr. Branch and made arrangements to purchase the sign permits in question. After consummating the purchase, it constructed a sign in question at the location authorized by the permits. The purchase of the permits and the subsequent erection of the sign was done in reliance upon the directions, information and suggestions from the Department's outdoor advertising inspector. The Notice of violation issued October 3, 1984, to Respondent's assignor, Branch~s Outdoor Advertising, was issued at the behest of Mr. Jack Culpepper, the Right-of-Way Administrator for the Department's Third District on or about September 27, 1984. Mr. Culpepper determined to issue the notice of violation based upon his formal inspection of the area immediately prior to that date, whereupon he concluded that the permits had been issued in error in 1982. Mr. Culpepper had no personal knowledge of whether any commercial activity was being conducted at the subject location in 1982, but relied on what had been reported to him by other third district personnel. The inspector who had personally inspected the property in 1982 had been satisfied that an unzoned commercial activity was occurring a proper distance from the sign site and his immediate supervisor had agreed with that interpretation which resulted in the permits being issued. Because of the change in interpretation of the foregoing statutory authority concerning sign permits in the Department's third district to a more strict interpretation, as delineated above, the Notice to Show Cause was issued against Respondent's assignor on October 3, 1984.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the petition by the Department of Transportation against Tri-State Systems, Inc. should be dismissed and that Tri-State Systems, Inc. should be permitted to retain the permits referenced above. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of October, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting in its entirety with the competent substantial evidence of record. Rejected for the same reason except for the last sentence which is accepted in so far as it demonstrates the reason for issuance of the Notice of Violation. Accepted, although this proposed finding of fact is not material, relevant nor dispositive of the material issues involved in this case. Accepted, although, as to its last sentence this proposed finding of fact is not material or relevant to a disposition of the material issues presented. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not in and of itself dispositive of the material issues presented in that it is immaterial to disposition of those issues. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Copies furnished: Maxine P. Ferguson, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 A. J. Spalla, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building ============================================================ =====
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 maintains an outdoor advertising sign adjacent to U.S. Highway 27 in Gadsden County, Florida. The sign is located approximately 1/2 mile South of the city limits of Havana. This sign has not been permitted in the years 1973 or 1974. No current permit tag was affixed to the sign as of May 12, 1975. Respondent has made no application to the Department of Transportation for a current permit.
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, Empire Outdoor Advertising, Inc., is the owner of a sign located on the westbound or north side of Northwest 54th Street approximately 20 feet east of Northwest 12th Avenue, in Dade County, Florida. Northwest 54th Street is also designated as State Road 25A. The Respondent's sign is a structure or billboard designed to advertise or inform, and its copy is visible from the main traveled way of the adjacent roadway of State Road 25A or Northwest 54th Street. At the site where the Respondent's sign is located, State Road 25A or Northwest 54th Street is a part of the federal- aid primary highway system, and this roadway is open to the public for vehicular traffic. The Respondent's sign is located within 660 feet from the nearest edge of the pavement of State Road 25A. The Respondent's sign is situated within 500 feet from another outdoor advertising structure on the same side of the highway. These two signs face in the same direction and are both visible to westbound traffic on the north side of State Road 25A or Northwest 54th Street. The Respondent's sign has affixed to it copy which advertises Kraft Barbecue Sauce. This structure does not fall within any of the exceptions to the statutory licensing requirements set forth in Section 479.16, Florida Statutes, and it must have a state sign permit. The Respondent has not applied for an outdoor advertising permit from the Department, and no such permit has been issued by the Department for the subject sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter its Final Order finding the Respondent's sign which is the subject of this proceeding to be in violation of the applicable statutes and rules, and ordering its removal. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 25th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, 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 25th day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 L. Martin Reeder, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 2637 Palm Beach, Florida 33480
The Issue Whether the Outdoor Advertising Sign owned by the Petitioner qualifies for permitting as a non-conforming sign.
Findings Of Fact On August 5, 1996, the Department issued a notice of Violation of an illegally erected sign to Clarence E. Adams. The sign in question was located 9.240 miles south of the line between Georgia and Florida on real property that is now and always has been zoned agricultural. The property upon which the sign is located was purchased by Clarence Adams and his brother, Dennis C. Adams, in 1976. The sign was on the property when they purchased the property; and, although they did not own the sign, they have derived continually revenue from the rental of the property upon which the sign is located since 1976. The sign has been maintained in it present form since 1976 by its owner(s). The subject sign had never been cited previously by the Department for violation of the outdoor advertising statutes. The subject sign is located at mile post 9.240. The sign is not in the Department’s right of way. The sign is not a danger to the traveling public. The sign is located adjacent to and can be seen from the main traveled way of Interstate 75 which is a federal highway that is open to the public. The current owner, Ray Sheffield, testified and did not claim to have a valid permit. Clarence Adams admitted that he had never applied for such a permit. The Department proved by testimony and evidence that the subject sign does not have a valid outdoor advertising permit, and there is no record by the Department that it ever had a valid permit. Clarence Adams proved that the sign was at its current location in 1976 when Adams and his brother purchased the property. Adams proved that a sign was in that location as early as 1975. The Department and the Federal Highway Administration entered into an agreement in 1972 that prohibited the erection of outdoor advertising signs along federal highways in areas zoned agricultural. The Petitioner did not prove that the sign was erected prior to the agreement between the Department and the Federal Highway Administration in 1972.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order finding: That the outdoor advertising sign, which is the subject of the notice of violation and which is located at mile post 9.240, does not have a permit, is in violation of the law, and is not qualified to be grand-fathered in and permitted; and That the owners of the real property upon which the subject sign is located and putative owner of the sign, Ray Sheffield, be directed to remove the sign within 30 days; and That the owners of the real property be advised that, if the subject sign is not removed, the Department will seek an order of a court of competent jurisdiction directing the removal of the sign and assessing costs for obtaining the court’s order and the costs of removing the sign. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1997 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Scaff, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer O Jasper, Florida 32052 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact U.S. 1 is a federal-aid primary highway and, in the vicinity of University Boulevard, is a divided highway, with parkway between north-and- southbound lanes. University Boulevard (SR 109) is not a federal-aid primary highway. Petitioner holds a lease on the property on which the proposed sign is to be erected and, in fact, already has a structure on this site and a permit for a north-facing sign on this structure. The proposed sign meets all DOT requirements except spacing. The structure on which the proposed sign is to be displayed is located on the east side of U.S. 1, 125 feet north of the intersection with University Boulevard. Lamar Dean Outdoor Advertising Company was issued a permit for a 14 by 48 foot sign along the east side of University Boulevard, 150 feet south of the intersection with U.S. 1. This sign faces west. That application for permit (Exhibit 8) shows the type highway to be U.S. 1, a federal-aid primary highway. A sign located on University Boulevard in Jacksonville which was not visible from a federal-aid primary highway would not require a DOT permit. This Lamar structure, which carries a Jack Bush-Toyota South copy, can easily be seen by persons in vehicles travelling on U.S. 1 and it is on the same side of U.S. 1 and within 500 feet of Petitioner's proposed sign. The Department of Transportation's (DOT) inspectors maintain inventories of all permitted signs. The criteria used by all DOT sign inspectors is to log any sign that can be seen and read from the primary highway. Actually, the Jack Bush sign can be seen by both north-and-southbound traffic on U.S. 1 when in the vicinity of University Boulevard but the northbound traffic passes closer to the sign. It is therefore carried by DOT as a south-facing sign.
The Issue Whether the subject outdoor advertising signs are illegal because they were erected without state permits from Petitioner. Whether the subject signs should be removed. Whether Petitioner is equitably estopped to assert that the signs are illegal and should be removed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to Interstate 95 on Northwest 6th Court, which is between Northwest 75th Street and Northwest 76th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. For ease of reference, this sign will be referred to as the Interstate 95 sign. The Interstate 95 sign has two facings, each of which is visible from Interstate 95. The Interstate 95 sign is located within 147 feet of the right-of-way of Interstate 95. Respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to Interstate 395 at the corner of Northwest 14th Street and Northwest 1st Court, Miami, Dade County, Florida. For ease of reference, this sign will be referred to as the Interstate 395 sign. The Interstate 395 sign has two facings, each of which is visible from Interstate 395. The Interstate 395 sign is located within 240 feet of the right- of-way of Interstate 395. Eugene A. (Andy) Hancock, Jr., is the President of the corporate Respondent and, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, controlled the activities of Respondent. Mr. Hancock caused the corporate Respondent to lease the respective properties on which the subject signs are located in November 1998. He thereafter caused the corporate Respondent to erect the two double-faced signs at issue in this proceeding. The subject signs were constructed during September and October 1999. Each sign was constructed without a state permit from Petitioner. Each sign is within the permitting jurisdiction of Petitioner. Mr. Hancock testified that his company did not apply for permits from Petitioner because of a conversation he had with Bernard Davis, a former outdoor advertising administrator for Petitioner. Mr. Hancock testified that Mr. Davis represented to him that his company would not need permits from Petitioner if it had permits from the City of Miami. This testimony is rejected. 3/ Respondent has applied for state sign permits for the subject signs. Permits for these signs have not been issued because of their proximity to existing, permitted signs. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that the subject signs are illegal and must be removed pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 2001.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Janet C. Wyatt, owns an outdoor advertising sign which is situated on U.S. 19, .5 mile south of State Road 44 in Citrus County, Florida. One of the faces of this sign faces north and the other faces south. U.S. 19 is a federal-aid-primary highway. The Respondent applied for a permit for the subject sign from the Department of Transportation approximately 15 years ago. The Department did not issue the requested permit, and none has been issued to date. The subject sign is a 16 foot billboard which has been erected at a point which is 80 feet from the center line of U.S. 19. The width of the state's right-of-way is 100 feet from the center line of U.S. 19 at the point where the sign is standing. Thus, the entire sign structure is inside the state right-of-way. There is no identification of the sign's owner on the structure. The Respondent admits that she has no state permit for the subject sign, that her name as owner does not appear anywhere on the structure, and that the sign is situated inside the state right-of-way.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's sign situated on U.S. 19, .5 mile south of State Road 44 in Citrus County, Florida, facing north and south, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 26th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, 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 March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Janet C. Wyatt 20 Crooked Branch Road Lecanto, Florida 32661 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
