Findings Of Fact The Respondent, J. B. Davis, Inc., owns an outdoor advertising sign which is situated on the south side of I-10, 3.2 miles east of the Jefferson County line, in Madison County, Florida. This sign faces eastbound traffic. I-10 is a part of the interstate highway system, and it is open to traffic. The subject sign is visible from the main traveled way of I-10. There is no zoning in Madison County, Florida. The subject sign has been erected and is situated beyond 800 feet from any existing business, and it is within 660 feet from the right-of-way of I-10. The subject sign does not have a permit issued by the Department of Transportation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's sign situated on the south side of I-10, 3.2 miles east of the Jefferson County line, facing eastbound traffic, in Madison County, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1985. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. J. B. Davis, President. J. B. Davis, Inc. Base and Duval Streets Madison, Florida 32340 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On June 22, 1981, Lamar Advertising Company applied to the Department of Transportation for a permit to erect a sign facing east, 0.3 mile east of the intersection of Interstate 10 and U.S. 90, outside the city limits of Pensacola, in Escambia County, Florida. Interstate 10 in Escambia County is part of the Federal Interstate Highway System. Attached to the application was a sketch showing the proposed sign location to be in the area between the water and U.S. 90, on the south side of Interstate 10. At this interchange, all access roads are west of U.S. 90, north and south of I-10. Because the Department did not have an inspector on duty in Escambia County, the field inspection of the proposed location was made by the Outdoor Advertising Supervisor for the Third District. He observed the area and found it to be on a downgrade with underbrush, making distance sighting difficult. Using the 0.3 mile location indicated on the application, and seeing no access ramps on the east side of U.S. 90, he considered the proposed location to be far enough from the interchange, but no measurements were actually made. As a result of this inspection, the permit application was approved on June 25, 1981. Shortly thereafter, while driving through the area heading east, the supervisor noted that 0.3 mile from U.S. 90 measured with his automobile speedometer would place the sign out in the bay. On July 21, 1981, this supervisor telephoned Lamar Advertising Company and advised that the permit had been issued in error. He met with the company on the following day, and after this meeting he sent a letter to Lamar Advertising Company confirming that the permit had been issued in error, and requesting its return. Lamar Advertising Company did not return the permit tag, and subsequently erected the sign facing east with the advertising copy not visible from the access ramp. The subject sign was erected in the area where the supervisor thought the sign would be, and at the approximate location shown on the sketch submitted with the application indicating a location 0.3 mile east of the nearest intersection. During a sign inventory conducted by the Department's inspector for Escambia County on August 28, 1981, the inspector observed that the undergrowth and trees had been cleared from the site, but that no sign had yet been erected. The manager of the Pensacola office of Lamar Advertising Company testified that the sign was erected during the last week in August of 1981, and that it was completely in place on the first day of September. The Department's supervisor observed that the sign had been recently erected sometime between the latter part of August and the first part of September. At a later date, this inspector was asked by the supervisor to check the location for the purpose of issuing a violation notice. On January 18, 1982, the inspector visited the site and made measurements. The sign is located approximately 95 feet from the limited access fence on I-10 and approximately 360 feet from the Exxon station on U.S. 90, and is 35 to 60 feet from the point of widening of the interchange, instead of 0.3 mile east of the interchange as the application stated. The advertising copy on the sign can be read by traffic traveling west on I-10. As a result of the measurements taken on this visit, notice of violation which is the subject of this proceeding was issued. The local manager of Lamar Advertising Company testified that materials for the sign in question had been purchased about the middle of July, and an advertising contract with Holiday Inn was executed on July 13, 1981, for the subject location. This contract has a substitute provision in paragraph 6 of the Standard Conditions, which states: . . .in the event Lamar is unable to deliver any portion of the service required in this contract. . .this contract shall not terminate. Credit shall be allowed to Advertiser at the standard rates of Lamar for such space or service for the period during which such space or service shall not be furnished. . .Lamar may discharge this credit, at its option, by furnishing advertising service on substitute spaces to be reasonably approved by Advertiser. . .
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the sign owned by Lamar Advertising Company facing east on the south side of Interstate 10, east of U.S. 90, in Escambia County, Florida, be removed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S.58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 P. Michael Patterson, Esquire 905 West Moreno Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, J. B. Davis, Jr., owns an outdoor advertising sign which is situated on the south side of I-10, 1.23 miles east of U.S. 211, in Madison County, Florida. This sign faces westbound traffic. I-10 is a part of the interstate highway system, and it is open to traffic. The subject sign is visible from the main traveled way of I-10. There is no zoning in Madison County, Florida. The subject sign has been erected and is situated beyond 800 feet from any existing business, and it is within 660 feet from the right-of-way of I-10. The subject sign does not have a permit issued by the Department of Transporation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's sign situated on the south side of I-10, 1.23 miles east of U.S. 211, facing westbound traffic, in Madison County, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 3rd day of April, 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 3rd day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. J. B. Davis President J. B. Davis, Inc. Base and Duval Streets Madison, Florida 32340 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On May 18, 1979, and May 25, 1979, Henderson Signs filed applications for seven permits to erect seven outdoor advertising sign structures in Washington County, Florida, adjacent to Interstate 10 in the proximity of State Road 77. These applications were field approved by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector and by his supervisor on or about May 30, 1979. Thereafter, on or about June 6, 1979, the Department issued permit numbers 11176-10, 11170-10, 11172-10, 11174-10, 11175-10, 11178-10 and 11179-10 to Henderson Signs. These permits authorized the erection of the signs in the vicinity of the I-10 and S.R. 77 interchange in Washington County, which are the subject of this proceeding. Subsequent to the issuance of theme permits, Henderson Signs erected the signs at the permitted locations. Thereafter, Henderson Signs transferred to the Respondent, Tri-State Systems, Inc., all of its interest in these signs and in the permits which authorized them to be erected. Prior to this transfer, the Respondent's representatives inquired at the Department's district office in Chipley whether the permits to be purchased from Henderson Signs were valid permits. Two of the Respondent's representatives testified that they received assurance from the outdoor Advertising Administrator in the Chipley district office that these permits were legal permits. This testimony, however, is self-serving and uncorroborated, and thus is not of sufficient quality to support a finding of fact. The subject permits had been issued by the Department because its district personnel believed that the proposed locations were in areas which had been zoned by the proper authorities of Washington County as commercial. Each of the permit applications submitted by Henderson Signs asserted that the site applied for was in a commercial or industrial zoned area. However, these assertions by Henderson Signs on its permit applications were false. There is not currently nor has there ever been any zoning in effect in Washington County on land located along I-10. The Department's district personnel in Chipley were thus misled by the assertions made by Henderson Signs on its applications. Although zoning ordinances are a matter of public record, and the Department's district personnel might have more thoroughly checked to ascertain if the subject sites were zoned as indicated on the applications, so also did the Respondent's representatives have this opportunity to ascertain the true zoning situation for the sites where they proposed to buy signs. The Respondent is an outdoor advertising company which has been in the business of outdoor advertising since at least 1976. It was aware that signs along an interstate highway must be located in either a zoned or an unzoned commercial or industrial area. Its normal procedure is to check with the county relative to zoning. Nevertheless, the Respondent did not verify the zoning status of any of the subject sites before consummating the purchase of these signs from Henderson Signs. The subject signs are located in a rural setting, and there is no commercial activity located in the area. Prior to October, 1984, these sites were inspected by the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator. As a result of this inspection, notices of violation were sent to the Respondent advising it that proceedings were being initiated to revoke the subject permits because the locations were not in a zoned or unzoned commercial or industrial area.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that signs bearing permit numbers 11176-10, 11170-10, 11172-10, 1174-10, 11175-10, 11178-10, and 11179-10, held by the Respondent, Tri-State Systems, Inc., authorizing signs in proximity to the I-10 and SR-77 interchange in Washington County, Florida, be revoked, and the subject signs be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 1st day of August, 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 1st day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire O. Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 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 There is no dispute regarding the facts here involved. SR 60 is a federal aid primary highway and the signs are located within the city limits of Tampa, Florida. No permit has been issued and the sign structure is located 150 feet from a permitted sign. Accordingly the signs violate the spacing requirements of the statutes. This is really the only issue here involved; however, both parties presented evidence and Respondent submitted a proposed recommended order on whether or not an application for a permit for these signs should be approved. Resolving this issue would be premature and result in an advisory opinion. However, to preserve the evidence and save having to repeat the hearing when, and if, Respondent submits an application for a permit the following is submitted. The signs in question were erected within the city limits of Tampa in 1974. At the time these signs were erected no state permit was required. In 1976 an application was submitted for a permit for these signs. This application was returned to the applicant to resubmit on new forms and be sure to complete the application (Exhibit 2). The permitted sign, from which the instant sign is not the required spacing, is located on the right of way of the cross town expressway, and when construction starts, this sign will be removed.
The Issue Whether the outdoor advertising signs of Respondent were in violation of Florida Statute 479.11(1), sign erected without a state permit. Whether subject sign is a new and different sign inasmuch as it has new facings, is erected on new poles and is materially elevated from the location of the previous sign. Whether subject sign is in violation of federal and state laws and should be removed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Transportation, issued the Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corporation, notice of alleged violation of Chapter 479, F.S., on October 27, 1975 with respect to the following sign: Highway: S.R. 8 (I-95) Location: Junction I-95 and U.S. 17 Copy: 76 Truck Stop Pursuant to this notice the Respondent requested this hearing for the determination of whether the Respondent is in violation of Florida Statutes, as alleged in the violation notice. This request was made by John T. Graczol, vice president of leasing, by letter dated November 6, 1975. Respondent is the owner of the sign referred to in paragraph 1 of these findings. A sign with similar copy was erected by the Respondent prior to 1970 at the approximate location of subject sign. The Respondent owned and maintained the sign from time of erection up until January of 1975 when such sign was removed and the subject sign built. Subject sign is erected in a nonconforming area both in zoning and on a ramp outside of the city limits on an interstate highway. It is nearer than 660 feet from the nearest edge of the right of way of an interstate highway system in an open rural zoning area and can be read by persons traveling on the interstate highway system. The sign that was removed was in the approximate location with similar copy but with an elevation of under 10 feet. Subject sign is a replacement sign in the approximate location as the replaced sign with the same type of copy. The replacement sign is on different poles and at a more elevated height (from under 10 feet to over 16 feet) than the replaced sign. The replacement subject sign is much more visible to the traveling public than the old sign because of the materially increased elevation. No part of the old sign is standing and the replaced sign has been removed The Petitioner testified that the value of the sign increased by $484.00 and it is the finding of the Hearing Officer that the replacement sign is of more monetary value than the replaced sign. The new facing materials, the replacement of poles and the decided increase in elevation, make subject sign a different sign within the meaning of Chapter 479, F.S. and the federal regulations, thus, becoming a new sign requiring a permit rather than qualifying as nonconforming with the customary maintenance or repair of existing signs allowed under Section 479.01(12), F.S., infra. The owner of the sign was given written notice of the alleged violation and said Respondent has had a hearing under Section 479.17, F.S., and Chapter 120, F.S.
Recommendation Remove subject sign if said sign has not been received by the owner within ten (10) days after entry of the final order herein. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William D. Rowland, Esquire P. O. Box 539 Winter Park, Florida Mr. O. E. Black Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. F. S. Whitesell District Sign Coordinator South Marion Street Lake City, Florida 32055
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, J. B. Davis, Inc., owns an outdoor advertising sign which is situated on the south side of I-10, .14 mile west of C-255, in Madison County, Florida. The sign faces eastbound traffic. I-10 is a part of the interstate highway system, and it is open to traffic. The subject sign is visible from the main traveled way of I-10. There is no zoning in Madison County, Florida. The subject sign has been erected and is situated beyond 800 feet from any existing business, and it is within 660 feet from the right-of-way of I-10. The subject sign does not have a permit issued by the Department of Transportation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's sign situated on the south side of I-10, .14 mile west of C-255, facing eastbound traffic, in Madison County, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 3rd day of April, 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 3rd day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. J. B. Davis President J. B. Davis, Inc. Base and Duval Streets Madison, Florida 32340 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is maintaining signs illegally as alleged in a Notice of Violation issued to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), is the state agency that regulates outdoor advertising signs located within 660 feet of the State Highway System, interstate, or federal-aid primary system, as provided in Section 479.105, Florida Statutes (2008). On January 3, 2008, DOT issued Notice of Violation T117MB alleging that eight signs on the Shiver Property (Shiver) in Florida City, Florida, were erected illegally, and requiring the owner to remove or to pay DOT to remove the signs. There is no dispute that the permits to erect the signs have not been issued by DOT. The signs are mounted on top of the Shiver building located at 12 Northeast 3rd Street, Florida City, Dade County, Florida, and are from 16 to 27 feet apart from each other. The property is managed by Roy Dan Shiver (Mr. Shiver) who operates Shiver Glass and Mirror Company at the same location. Other tenants are the Frito Lay Company, a tax preparation service, and a real estate business. One of the signs on the Shiver building advertises for "Captain Shon's Seafood Grill & Pub Fish and Chips MM 103 - Key Largo." Another sign reads "The Big Chill Waterfront Dining 24 miles to Sports Bar Tiki Bar Pool MM 104 - Key Largo - Bayside." A third sign advertises "Sunset - Seafood Marker 88." Captain Shon's Seafood Grill & Pub Fish and Chips, Big Chill Waterfront Dinning, and Sunset - Seafood Marker 88 do not operate businesses on the Shiver property. The remaining five signs are various advertisements for The Shell Man including the following: "The Shell M Windchi T-shirt 32 miles on left * 70 on" (with apparent damage cutting off some of the words); "The Shell Man Unique Gifts * Full Service * Gas Station * Free Shell Necklace 32 miles on left;" "The Shell Man Take Home A pet! Hermit Crabs 32 miles on left * 70 miles on left;" "The Shell Man Come Blow A Conch Horn 32 miles on left;" and "The Shell Man Shark Necklaces Jaws & Gifts 32 miles on left * 70 miles on left." Mr. Shiver testified that The Shell Man has operated a business in the Shiver building for more than seven years, and currently operates in an office shared with Mr. Shiver after having moved from a separate office that is now occupied by a real estate company. His testimony regarding the length of time The Shell Man has operated a business at that location is not supported by the one lease he has with The Shell Man, dated January 1, 2008, with no other evidence of prior agreements. According to Mr. Shiver, The Shell Man operates a business by having brochures and samples of shells, that "they could sell" or "could give them away," in the Shiver office, but The Shell Man has no sign on the door and its owner comes and goes with no regular hours. Petitioner's claim that The Shell Man operates a business on the premises is not supported by the credible evidence. In response to questions concerning the zoning and any special designations for the area in which the Shiver building is located, Mr. Shiver was "sure it's zoned commercial," believed it was part of a community redevelopment area, and testified that it was "very possible" that it is in an empowerment zone. The signs on the Shiver building in Dade County all advertise for businesses located in Monroe County, and are oriented facing north to be seen by traffic heading south. Mr. Shiver testified that drivers on U.S. 1, a federal-aid primary highway, have to turn their heads and look back to see the signs on his building. A permitted billboard north of the Shiver property has two signs on it, one faces north and the other faces east. Petitioner takes the position that, (1) the eight signs are not on U.S. 1 but on the Florida Turnpike off-ramp leading onto U.S. 1; (2) that the evidence does not clearly show that the signs are within 660 feet of and visible from a federal-aid primary highway or interstate; (3) that the signs are not too close together or to the nearest permitted billboard that has signs facing in different directions; (4) that the local government, not DOT, has the authority to regulate the signs under an agreement with the federal government; and (5) sign regulations are inapplicable in the "distressed area." Mack Barnes, the DOT outdoor advertising inspector, who reported the possible sign violations to DOT testified that the signs are approximately 150 feet from the state right-of-way and are visible from U.S. 1. Mr. Barnes took a picture of the building with the signs to submit with his report. He could only submit one or two pictures with his report and to get the best vantage point, he took that picture from the Turnpike off ramp. Mark Johnson, the DOT regional advertisement inspector, also photographed the signs on the Shiver building. Like Mr. Barnes, he took some photographs from the Turnpike ramp, but he took one, Respondent's Exhibit 7, while he was standing on southbound U.S. 1. That picture shows the Shiver building and five of the signs on top of it. Based on Mr. Johnson's measurements, the signs are from 16-to-27 feet apart, and the distance to the nearest permitted billboard, with tag numbers BC367 and CG754, is 445 feet. The measurements were taken with a Nightstar Distance Measuring Instrument and are more exact than an earlier DOT estimate of 491 feet based on the milepost locations. On December 31, 2007, Mr. Johnson checked each door of the Shiver building to see if any of the businesses advertised on the signs were operating on the premises and they were not. He did not go inside any of the offices.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order finding that the eight signs that are the subject of Notice of Violation T117MB are a public or private nuisance, and requiring that they be removed as provided in Subsection 479.105(1)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia A. Henderson, Esquire Cynthia A. Henderson, P.A. 411 Meridian Place Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Kimberly Clark Menchion, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 James C. Myers, Agency Clerk Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Stephanie Kopelouso, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Alexis M. Yarbrough, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
