Findings Of Fact Petitioner proposes to erect outdoor advertising signs along the south side of I-10, 0.2 miles and 0.4 miles, respectively, east of U.S. 41. The Petitioner has acquired a lease on the sites proposed for these signs. The sites in issue are in Columbia County and Columbia County is unzoned. These sites are outside any incorporated town or city and the area is rural in nature. A radio transmitting or relay tower is located between the proposed sites and a small concrete block building is located near the base of the tower. These are the only structures in the area. Each of the two sites for which a permit is sought is within 800 feet of this small building. The building is unoccupied and is reported to contain materials used in the maintenance of the tower. The tower is owned by B & B Communications located in Lake City, Florida. Opinion testimony was offered by Petitioner that the highest and best use of small tracts of this land would be for outdoor advertising signs. Exhibit 10, Building and Zoning Code for the City of Jacksonville, Florida, which is coterminous with Duval County, establishes a category of Open Rural Districts (OR) in which permissible uses by exception include radio or television transmitters, antenna and line-of-site relay devices. The zoning code for Tallahassee shows one of the principal uses for land zoned A-1 Agricultural District is for "(8) Broadcasting towers, radio and television transmission stations and studios." There are six or seven signs located in the general area along the I-10 between U.S. 41 and U.S. 441, most on the north side of I-10. Those permitted signs were "grandfathered in" and no permit has been issued for any sign erected in this area since 1979.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent was issued Florida Alcoholic Beverage License 2APS Number 66-248 for the Plaza Grocery located at 2233 North 25th Street, Ft. Pierce, Florida. The parties stipulated, and it is found, that Respondent had the cigarettes as alleged in the Notice To Show Cause in the quantities referred to and that said cigarettes were, in fact, untaxed. The parties further stipulated that on September 15, 1983, during a search conducted by officers of the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department and the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Taxation in Respondent's premises, the officers found in the retail rack behind the counter, twenty (20) packages of Salem Menthol 100's, and nine (9) packages of Salem Menthol Light 100's, that were untaxed. The nine (9) packages indicate that one package out of a carton of ten (10) packs was missing. In addition to the above, officers found in a box behind the counter, three (3) cartons of Salem Menthol Light 100's and four (4) cartons of Salem Menthol 100's; all untaxed and mixed in the box with cartons of taxed cigarettes. In a storeroom off from the sales area, officers found fifty-one (51) cartons of Salem Menthol Light 100's and nineteen (19) cartons of Salem Menthol 100's. Detective Alfonzo Washington who has served in that capacity for two (2) years and for the Sheriff's office in other capacities for ten (10) years has known Respondent for twenty- five (25) years. On September 15, 1983, he received a report from a friend who runs a convenience store in that area that someone had offered untaxed cigarettes for sale. Because of his relationship with Respondent, Officer Washington went to the Respondent's store to warn him. Arriving sometime between 11:30 a.m. and noon, Washington talked with Respondent outside the store near his unmarked police car. Washington was in the car and Respondent was outside it. He advised Respondent that if anyone tried to sell him cigarettes to contact him; that he wanted Respondent to, "help me." Washington did not ask Respondent to buy the cigarettes if offered: only to be a lookout and to contact him if anyone offered to sell. Whether there was an actual request or not, it is clear that Respondent thought there was and he acted on what he considered to be the request of a bona fide law enforcement officer. A finding of this nature was subsequently made in Respondent's criminal trial in the same facts and while not binding in this hearing, that court order is of some probative value. Respondent did not, however call Washington when, as it appears, an individual did in fact offer to sell him cigarettes, the cigarettes in question here, later on in the day. Respondent, Boatwright, in addition to running the Plaza Grocery Store, a convenience store which sells mostly dried and prepackaged foods, wine, beer, and cigarettes, operates a fruit harvesting and hauling business. He confirms Washington's story that he was leaving his store approximately noon on September 15 when Washington approached him and asked him if anyone had offered to sell him cigarettes. Boatwright also confirms Washington's testimony that he explained what had happened but contends that Washington asked for his help in solving the case. Respondent agreed that Washington left after a very short conversation and no detailed instructions were given. Respondent then ran some errands, going to the bank, and to a car dealership, arriving back at the grocery store at approximately 2 or 2:30 p.m. While he was working on some equipment in his repair shop in back of the store, a black male who he knew as "Peanut" drove up in a blue and white Cadillac. Peanut asked Respondent if he was interested in buying any cigarettes. This immediately rang a bell with Respondent who then asked Peanut how many he had and how much he wanted. Peanut said he had about eighty (80) cartons and was willing to sell them for $400.00. When Respondent asked if he would take less, Peanut, after talking with the other individual in the car, agreed to sell the entire lot for $300.00. At this point, Respondent advised Peanut he would have to come back later in the day because he, Respondent, did not have that much money with him. If fact, Respondent did have $300.00 with him at the time and contends he used this subterfuge only to allow him time to attempt to get Washington to the store. After talking with his friends in the car, Peanut agreed to come back later and he, Peanut, took the cigarettes which were in unopened cartons packed in two (2) brown boxes, into the store and in the storeroom where Respondent told him to put them. This was approximately 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon. The cigarettes were placed just inside the storeroom door next to some groceries, completely out in the open. After depositing the cigarettes, Peanut indicated that he would be back between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. Respondent contends that he expected Officer Washington to come by on his way home from work somewhere around 4:00 p.m. Washington agreed that he, usually, got off work and passed by the Plaza Grocery on his way home and that he sometimes stopped in to talk with Respondent. However, while Washington indicated he failed to come in more than he stopped in, Respondent contends that Washington stopped in more often than not and that it was because of this that he did not call Washington intending to see him on the way home. He indicates that if Washington went by without stopping, he was going to call Washington at home and have him come over to be there when Peanut returned. On balance, it would appear Respondent is in error here. As it happened, however, approximately a half an hour after Peanut left, beverage agents and sheriff's department detectives, as their last stop in their check of several area convenience stores for the stolen cigarettes, came into the store while Respondent was outside talking. The agents came up in a brown car and Respondent thought it was relating to fruit harvesting. Respondent went inside the store to see what the agents wanted and found that several of the officers, including Officer White, had already gone behind the counter to the cigarette rack. At this point Respondent asked what was the problem. White replied that he wanted to check cigarettes and when White asked who Respondent bought the cigarettes from, Respondent who did not know who any of these people were replied, the Eli Witt Company. When one detective asked him if he had any more cigarettes, he said "yes" and attempted to show him where the cigarettes were in the storeroom. Ultimately the detectives advised Respondent of his right to remain silent, but he waived this right and fully explained what had happened. When Investigator White, a new beverage agent with whom respondent was not familiar, found cigarettes that were untaxed in the cigarette retail rack, he advised Respondent of his testimonial rights and Respondent indicated a desire to make a statement. In this statement, respondent reiterated the story outlined above to the effect that Washington had approached him earlier in the day to solicit his help in watching for untaxed cigarettes. He then went on to indicate the story of how Peanut had come and left the cigarettes there. September 15, 1983 was on a Thursday. The following Sunday, Investigators Young's wife called White and indicated that Respondent had called her in an effort to talk to Young. White called Respondent back and was told by Respondent that Peanut had come back that day in another car to threaten him into either returning the cigarettes or paying for them. Respondent advised White that he had a partial tag number and a description of the vehicle. He also advised White that he had reported this to the Sheriff's Department through the 911 number. At this, White advised Respondent to keep an eye out and to call if anything else developed. The cigarettes in the retail rack were in plain view and were not hidden as were the cigarettes in the box behind the counter. Investigator White confirms Respondent's story that the cigarettes in the storeroom were not hidden and were left out in the boxes with the end labels of each carton showing. This was somewhat contradicted by the testimony of Petitioner's rebuttal witness, Detective Williams from the County Sheriff's office, who stated that the cigarettes were somewhat concealed. Nonetheless, it would appear that the cigarettes were not concealed and there is no evidence to show that Respondent attempted to hide the cigarettes or make them unavailable to the investigating officers. In fact, it appears the cigarettes were where Peanut had left them with the exception of those few cartons taken from the storeroom and put into the retail rack behind the counter. In that regard, Respondent denies having moved the cigarettes and contends his five (5) employees denied moving them. It is clear that they were moved, however, more likely by an employee who now denies it.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc., was issued permits numbered AI-962-10 and AI-963-10 on or about April 28, 1983. These permits were for the erection of a sign located on the north side of I-10, approximately 1.6 miles east of SR 297, in Escambia County, Florida. They were issued because of the proximity of an automotive business noted on a sketch attached to the applications submitted by the Respondent as "Bill's Paint and Body Shop." In February of 1984, replacement tags numbered AL844-12 and AL845-12 were issued. 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 "Bill's Paint and Body Shop" to be in close proximity to the proposed sign location. On each of these applications the Respondent certified that the sign 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 a "Pritchett's Paint and Body Shop" nearby the proposed sign location. This inspector was able to see several autos on the Pritchett property and some activity around these autos. Apparently because the inspector expected to find an automotive 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. Subsequently, a sign was erected on the Pritchett property with the copy "Willie's Paint and Body Shop," but this sign was not in place when the site inspection was made. From the main traveled way of I-10, the inspector was not able to testify specifically that any paint and body work was observed, or that any commercial activity could be seen from the interstate. The inspector merely testified "I observed activity around those automobiles going on." The Pritchett property is residential. Mr. Pritchett lives there. He does operate a paint and body business from his back yard. He has had an occupational license since 1977, renewing these businesses each year through 1984. Although he could not produce a license for the year when the permits were approved, this does not mean that he didn't actually renew the license for this year. Nevertheless, as viewed from I-10, only the sign which was erected subsequent to the approval of the permits and the rear portion of some autos, can be seen. The Department's inspector made a mistake in approving the Respondent's applications because no commercial activity is visible from the interstate. The testimony of the Respondent and his witnesses, including Mr. Pritchett, is rejected as being inconsistent with what can be seen by viewing the photographs in evidence. Moreover, whoever erected the sign had to feel that the view from I-10 was inadequate to qualify the site as commercial without it. During the summer of 1984, the subject site was inspected by a Department Right-of-Way Administrator, who determined that the permits had been issued in error because of the absence of visible commercial activity within 800 feet of the sign. In December of 1984, the Department issued its notices of violation advising the Respondent that the subject sign permits were being revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permits numbered AL844-12 and AL845- 12 held by the Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc., authorizing signs on the North side of I-10, approximately 1.6 miles east 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 32399-1550 (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. 85-0327T The Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties are ruled upon as follows: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Rejected, as irrelevant. Rejected, as irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected, as irrelevant. Accepted relative to use of sketch. Rejected relative to remainder, as irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted relative to the photos. Rejected relative to remainder, as irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, as irrelevant. Rejected. Accepted relative to the application. Rejected relative to remainder, as irrelevant. Rejected, as irrelevant. Accepted relative to visibility of the commercial activity. Rejected relative to remainder. Accepted relative to everything except the visibility from I-10. Rejected, relative to the visibility from I-10. Accepted. Rejected relative to visibility from I-10. Accepted relative to the remainder. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mark J. Proctor, Esquire Post Office Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has erected two signs advertising a service station business, one of which lies 1.4 miles east of State Road 81 on the north side of Interstate Highway 10, and one of which is located nine-tenths of a mile west of State Road 81 on the south side of Interstate 10. The Petitioner seeks a permit authorizing the erection and maintenance of those two signs. Both signs lie within the corporate limits of the City. of Ponce de Leon. A previous application by the Petitioner was rejected apparently because the subject sign locations were not properly zoned to comply with the exception contained in Section 479.111, Florida Statutes. That is, they were not commercially or industrially zoned and were not in on zoned areas of commercial and industrial character. In denying the instant application, the Respondent has taken the position that the signs, which are within 660 feet of Interstate Highway 10, occupy areas which are located in areas which are "strip zoned" and are therefore improperly zoned. Interstate Highway 10 is part of the interstate system defined in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The interstate highway was opened at the time that the signs wore erected, and they can be seen from the main traveled way of Interstate 10. The Respondent contends that strip zoning is prohibited by Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Subchapter H, Part 750, "Highway Beautification." The testimony of the Petitioner, as well as the zoning map of the City of Ponce de Leon, Florida, embodied in Petitioner's Exhibit 3, establishes that both of the subject signs are in an area zoned commercial, which official zoning map or plan was adopted by the Commission of the City of Ponce de Leon on January 29, 1976. The Petitioner's testimony also, as corroborated by Petitioner's Exhibit 4, establishes that the Ponce de Leon zoning pattern is not unique or unusual, and that strip zoning is analogous to the term "spot zoning" which is used to imply zoning which is improper or aberrational in its relation to the overall character, use and zoning of the property which surrounds or adjoins a "strip" or "spot zoned" tract. There was no showing that the commercially zoned area in which the signs are located is out of context with the proper use of property adjoining it along Interstate 10 and around the subject intersection, nor was it shown to be detrimental to the adjoining properties or the proper enjoyment and use of the adjoining properties. No evidence was adduced by the Respondent which would establish that the zoning map and the zoning plan it represents by the City of Ponce de Leon, insofar as it relates to the subject commercially zoned area, is unique, unusual or improper. The subject zoning ordinances and the map were demonstrated to be duly and properly adopted by the City Commission. Finally, The Respondent's own witness conceded that the area in which the signs are located is not strip zoned in a deleterious sense.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, pleadings and arguments of counsel, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation granting the petition of Nugget Oil Company, Inc., and permitting the erection and location of the signs described hereinabove located respectively 1.4 miles east of State Road 81 on the north side of Interstate Highway 10, and nine-tenths of a mile west of State Road 81 on the south side of Interstate Highway 10. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1981, 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 20th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Paul H. J. Mosier Post Office Box 1297 Crestview, Florida 32536 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Jacob D. Varn, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent Department of Transportation enter a final order denying the applications of petitioner Headrick Outdoor, Inc. for sign permits. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. J.LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 March, 1985.
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
The Issue Whether the sign on the side of the Respondent's trailer, which has been placed on the east side of I-4, .01 mile south of Buffalo Avenue in Hillsborough County, is a nuisance which should be removed, pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In early February 1990, the Department's Outdoor Advertising Administrator with District 7 observed the following: a 13' x 40' metal trailer with a large advertisement for Contractor's Exams on its side in a stationary location. The trailer was approximately twenty feet from the I-4 right-of-way fence, on the east side of the highway, one-tenth of a mile south of Buffalo Avenue in an unincorporated area of Hillsborough County. The advertising message was clearly visible from the main travel way of the interstate highway. During a sixty-day period, the administrator regularly observed this trailer to see if it had been relocated in anyway. When he determined from the observations that the trailer had not been moved, he visited the property where the trailer was located on April 2, 1990. The business enterprise at this location is South Florida Engineering Company. As part of its business, this company has trailers, tractors and other equipment parked on site. When the administrator and an outdoor advertising inspector entered the property, they went to the office and inquired about the one trailer. The administrator was directed to another manager who has his office in the dock area. No one met with him at this location, and he was unable to get any more assistance from the man with whom he had spoken earlier. Having observed the trailer on the premises, and having observed its distance away from other equipment, along with its position in relation to the highway and the type of message printed on its side, the administrator issued a Notice of Violation. The administrator determined that the printed message on the trailer's side advertising Contractor's Exams was a unpermitted sign, in violation of Section 479.07(1) Florida Statutes. Another copy of the notice was mailed to Carl Mathews Construction School. The reason the notice was mailed to this enterprise was because the school's services were being advertised by the sign. The mailing address was ascertained by calling the phone number on the advertisement and requesting the address. The inspector accompanying the administrator physically attached the Notice of Violation on the trailer and took a picture of it on this same date. Subsequent to April 2, 1990, the inspector took pictures of a different trailer on the same site with the same advertising message. In these later pictures, the trailer was farther away from the right-of-way fence, but the message could still be seen from the interstate highway. The trailer remained isolated from other trailers on site. These additional pictures were taken on June 15 and 26, and July 18, 1990. In addition to the trailer in I-4 and Buffalo Avenue, the inspector became aware of another trailer with the same message at State Road 60 and Adamo Drive. This trailer's message could also be seen from the road. It remained at this location in the same stationary position from the middle of June through mid July. This trailer was parked in a trailer yard. Mr. Carl Mathews is the owner of Carl Mathews Construction School, the business advertised on the side of these two trailers. In addition to this enterprise, Mr. Mathews is actively involved in the business of leasing trailers, like the two previously mentioned. Ordinarily, these are leased to Contractors for the storage of on-site supplies or to truckers for over the road hauling. Through his various interests in a number of corporations, Mr. Mathews has an interest in one hundred and thirty trailers as well as the trailer yard at State Road 60 and Adamo Drive. Only two of these trailers display an advertisement for Carl Mathews Construction School. The trailer originally at the I-4 and Buffalo Avenue site from February through April 2, 1990, was there for two reasons. First of all, the strip of property where both trailers were ultimately located had been leased by one of the corporations in which Mr. Mathews is a principle. The purpose of the lease was to store empty trailers during the time periods they were not being leased. Storage of this type of trailer is difficult in Hillsborough County because ordinances only allow them on property zoned for industrial use. Secondly, the trailer in question needed its brakes redone. During this time period, this repair was going to be performed by South Eastern Mechanical, who runs a repair business at this site. Later, this trailer was moved to the State Road 60 - Adamo Drive storage yard in which Mr. Mathews has an ownership interest. This yard had recently acquired its own mechanic who will repair the brakes. The second trailer was also placed at the I-4 - Buffalo Avenue location for storage purposes. The Carl Mathews Construction School is located at 7207 North Nebraska Avenue in Tampa. There are no school functions at the I-4 - Buffalo Avenue location. The purpose of the written message on each trailer was to inform members of the public interested in Contractor's Exams that Carl Mathews Construction School was offering new courses. A sign permit has not been issued by the Department for either trailer during their stays at the I-4 - Buffalo Avenue location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended: That the Notice of Violation issued against the first trailer at the I- 4 - Buffalo Avenue location be found be have been properly issued by the Department. That Contractor be found to have fully complied with the Notice of Violation issued April 2, 1990. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 25th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2427T The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO number 1, number 2 and number 5. Accepted. See HO number 10, number 11, number 14 and number 16. Accept first sentence. See HO number 10. The rest is rejected as irrelevant to the dispute of material fact. Contractor's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Although the Department did comply with all necessary legal requirements when the violation was posted on the first trailer. Accept all but last two sentences. See HO number 8. The last two sentences are contrary to fact. See HO number 15. There was no showing that the second trailer had been moved from the I-4 - Buffalo Avenue location. There was insufficient reliable evidence presented at hearing for the Hearing Officer to accept this presumption. More reasonable, contrary evidence was accepted by the Hearing Officer which revealed that the second trailer remained at this location. See HO number 9. Rejected. Contrary to fact that the first trailer was able to operate on the road. See HO number 14. Otherwise, accept that trailers were the type of trailers pulled by truck tractors. Accepted. But factual dispute was reconciled. See HO number 1 and number 8. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 18. Accept all except last sentence. See HO number 10, number 12, number 13, number 14 and number 15. Last sentence is improper conclusion and contrary to reasonable inference. See HO number 9. Rejected. Improper comparison without proper foundation. Rejected. Improper legal argument. Accept the first sentence. See HO number 10. Reject the last sentence as self serving. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact In 1974 Tag No. 8670-10 was issued to Peterson Outdoor Advertising for a sign located on US 98 one-half mile north of SR 60 in Bartow, Florida. At the time the permit was issued, Peterson had a sublease to erect the sign from the operator of a garage located on this site who leased the property from the owner. In 1980 Lamar bought out Peterson and acquired its assets including the permit for a sign on the garage property. At this time Peterson held a lease from Garfield Jones to occupy the site with one advertising structure. This lease was for a five year period ending December 31, 1984 (Exhibit 6). The lease contained the usual provisions for cancellation by the parties and for extensions beyond the expiration date. In 1985, the garage tenant surrendered his lease, and the building was modified to operate as a feed store. Lamar's sign was removed to make way for the building modification as provided for by the lease. On July 22, 1986, Quality executed a lease with Milton W. Bryan, Jr. (Exhibit 3) for a site for an advertising sign at premises located at 1710 N. Broadway in Bartow, Florida. This is the site for which both of these Petitioners seek permits. As compensation therefor the lessee agrees to pay $1200 a year upon erection of the sign. Subsequent thereto on August 6, 1986, Lamar obtained a lease from Bryan to erect a sign on this same property. As compensation therefor, Lamar provided Bryan with a sign along U.S. 17 south of Bartow at no cost. Lamar also presented Exhibit 4 which was admitted without objection. This is an affidavit of Bryan that upon removal of Lamar's sign during construction of the Feed Depot building Lamar had right of first refusal to rebuild an outdoor advertising structure. No evidence was submitted that Bryan offered or failed to offer Lamar right of first refusal before he executed the lease to Quality.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 14, 1977, Henderson Signs filed applications for four permits to erect two outdoor advertising signs in Jackson County, Florida, on the south side of Interstate 10, one approximately 1.5 miles and the other approximately 1.7 miles west of U.S. 231. These applications were field inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, they were approved on or about May 16, 1977, and the Department issued permits numbered 9248-10, 9249-10, 9250-10 and 9251-10 for the requested locations to Henderson Signs. On or about January 4, 1984, permit number 9248-10 was reported lost, and the Department issued replacement tag number AL082-10. Subsequent to the issuance of these permits, Henderson Signs transferred all of its interest in the subject permits to the Respondent, Tri- State Systems, Inc. When Henderson Signs submitted the applications for the subject permits it designated thereon that the proposed locations were within 800 feet of a business known as Dilmore's Packing Plant. These applications also certified that the signs to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Dilmore's packing Plant processes meat for sale at both retail and at wholesale. It is located approximately 660 feet back off I-10, but the building can be seen from the interstate. The automobiles of three to five employees who work there can also be seen from I-10. However, from the photograph that was received in evidence the area appears to be rural or agricultural in nature, and not commercial. Unless the existence of Dilmore's Packing Plant was known, it could not be identified as a business from the interstate. There is an on- premise sign for the Dilmore Plant, but the words on this sign cannot be read from I-10. In summary, as viewed from the main-traveled way of the interstate there is nothing about the area or the Dilmore building to indicate that any commercial activity is being conducted at this location. Jackson County is presently unzoned, and it was not zoned in 1977 when the subject permits were approved. The area in question is essentially the same now as it was in 1977, as is the site where the Dilmore Plant is located. During 1984 the sites were inspected by the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator who determined that the permits had been issued in error because there was no visible commercial activity within 800 feet of the permit locations. In October of 1984, the Department issued Notices of Violation advising the Respondent that the subject permits were being revoked because they were not for locations in a zoned or unzoned commercial area. Prior to the transfer of the permits from Henderson Signs to the Respondent, representatives of the Respondent testified that they inquired at the Department's district office in Chipley whether the permits to be purchased from Henderson Signs were valid permits. They further testified that they received assurance from the Chipley district office that these permits were legal permits. This testimony, however, is totally self-serving without some form of corroboration, and is thus not of sufficient quality to support a finding of fact.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permits numbered AL082-10, 9249-10, 9250-10 and 9251-10 held by the Respondent, Tri-State Systems, Inc., authorizing signs on the south side of 1-10, approximately 1.5 and 1.7 miles west of U.S. 231 in Jackson County, Florida be revoked and any signs erected pursuant to these permits be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 8th day of October, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County. 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 8th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire P. O. Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
