The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to an order, requiring the removal of two signs involved herein which are owned by Respondent, pursuant to the Highway Beautification Act or Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and if so, whether or not the Respondent is entitled to compensation from Petitioner for the value of such signs.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony adduced at the hearing, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that the Respondent, National Advertising Company, is the owner of certain outdoor advertising signs located in the City of Jacksonville, Florida. The parties also stipulated that Interstate 95 is part of the interstate highway system; that the two signs in question can be seen from Interstate 95 and the signs are located within 660 feet of the road's right-of-way. The parties also stipulated that only the poles which are used to erect the signs were in place prior to midnight on December 8, 1971. It appears that the poles were erected sometime during 1968, and that faces were added to the poles during the spring of 1972. The signs are located at .43 miles North of Pecan Park Road and .73 miles North of Pecan Park Road, respectively, adjacent to Interstate percent Highway 95. The Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, takes the position that since the faces were not on the signs prior to midnight on December 8, 1981, pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, it is entitled to the entry of an order requiring removal of the signs by Respondent without any compensation for the signs whatsoever. Respondent, through counsel, moved that the hearing be dismissed on the ground that the Division of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction to hear such matters, in that the signs may be removed only by proceeding under Florida's eminent domain law. 2/ It is undisputed that the signs involved are located within prohibited distances as provided in Chapter; 479.11, Florida Statutes. They are, therefore, a nonconforming structure as provided for within the terms of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. In view of the stipulated facts, the structures involved herein do not constitute signs within the meaning of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, since prior to midnight on December 8, 1971, all that existed of those structures were poles. See A. W. Lee, Jr. v. Reubin O'D. Askew, Case No.2-1798 (2nd DCA, 1979). Within the next year, however, Respondent erected advertising displays which had informative contents that were visible from the main traveled way. At that point, the structures herein became nonconforming outdoor advertising signs and were thereafter required to comply with pertinent State law in effect on that date.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, upon removal of the signs, remit to the Respondent compensation in the amount of the actual replacement value of the materials used in the signs. It is further recommended that compensation be made pursuant to the State's eminent domain procedures. 3/ RECOMMENDED this, 25th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 September, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Union Street at its intersection with Jefferson Avenue in Jacksonville, Florida, is also known as US 23 and is a federal-aid primary highway. It is a one-way street for east-bound traffic and is located within the corporate limits of Jacksonville. The proposed sign would be located on the north side of Union Street 20 feet west of the intersection with Jefferson Street and would face west to be viewed by the eastbound traffic on Union Street. Zoning at the proposed location is commercial/industrial. Criterion Advertising Company has been issued permits for two signs near the intersection of Union Street and Jefferson Avenue (Exhibits 5 and 6). These signs are on the south side of a building on the northeast corner of this intersection, thus making them parallel to Union Street 14 feet and 20 feet respectively east of the Jefferson Avenue pavement. Jefferson Avenue is not a federal-aid primary highway. In their inventory the Department of Transportation (DOT) carries the Criterion signs as facing westerly because they can be seen by the eastbound traffic on US 23. There are only four blocks on an application for a sign permit in which to mark the direction in which the sign faces. These are the four cardinal points of the compass. Highways in Florida, as well as the streets in most cities in Florida, run generally in a north/south or east/west direction. Signs alongside a federal-aid primary highway that are intended to be seen by northbound traffic are carried in DOT inventory as southerly facing signs whether they actually face in a southerly compass direction or not. Advertising signs, the face of which are parallel to the highway from which they are viewed, are not as saleable as are signs at right angles, or nearly so, to the highway.
The Issue Whether a sign owned by D & H Oil Company located along Interstate 10 approximately 1.1 miles East of State Road 81 bearing the copy "Spur" is in violation of the setback requirements set out in Section 479.11(1), Florida Statutes, and in violation of the permit requirements set out in Section 479.07(1) and (6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent D & H Oil Company's sign is located forty- three (43) feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way of Interstate 10 (I-10) and no permit is affixed to the subject sign. The sign in question is located within the extension of the city boundaries of Ponce de Leon, Florida as extended by ordinance drawn in 1970 and duly filed in 1975. The Town of Ponce de Leon adopted the comprehensive zoning ordinance which authorized use of business signs in commercial areas. An area north of I-10, Section 27, Township 4 North, Range 17 West was designated a commercial area. The Respondent D & H Oil Company constructed their sign in this zoned area which was within forty-three (43) feet of the nearest edge of the right-of- way of I-10, and applied to the Petitioner Florida Department of Transportation for a permit for the subject sign. The Petitioner denied the request for the reason that the sign was erected in violation of the setback requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The Respondent D & H Oil Company did not obtain a permit before erecting the sign and it is within the area presently described as the Town of Ponce de Leon, Florida. The Ordinance filed with the Secretary of State in December of 1975 authorized use of business signs in commercial areas. The area north of I-10 in Section 27, Township 4 North, Range 17 West was designated as a commercial area, together with other areas along the highway, and the sign of Respondent is erected within that area. The areas zoned commercially by the Town of Ponce de Leon stretches several miles along both sides of the right-of-way of I-10 and contains no commercial or industrial structures other than outdoor advertising signs. The Town of Ponce de Leon has not submitted to the Administrator of Outdoor Advertising, State of Florida Department of Transportation, its zoning regulations which control outdoor advertising, and the State of Florida Department of Transportation has not notified the Federal Highway Administrator that there has been established within such area regulations which are enforced with respect to the size, lighting and spacing of outdoor advertising signs consistent with the intent of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and customary use. Customary use is use consistent with that use regulated statewide by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Require the Respondent D & H Oil Company to remove the subject sign unless it can show within thirty (30) days from date hereof that the area in which the sign is located is in a zoned commercial and industrial area certified by the Florida Department of Transportation to the Federal Highway Administrator that there has been established with such area regulations which are enforced wish respect to the size, lighting and spacing of outdoor advertising signs consistent with the intent of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and with customary use. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of October, 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: George L. Waas, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James E. Moore, Esquire Post Office Box 746 Niceville, Florida Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Florida Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. J. E. Jordan District Sign Coordinator Post Office Box 607 Chipley, Florida 32428
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Jones & Scully Aloha Foliage Growers, maintained the sign at issue. On September 6, 1989, the sign was located on the southbound, west side of Krome Avenue, 56 feet south of Southwest 168th Street in unincorporated Dade County, Florida, and approximately 25 feet from the outside edge of the right- of-way of Krome Avenue. The portion of Krome Avenue at which the sign was located is within the federal-aid primary highway system. The sign was clearly visible from the roadway. However, the sign did not have a permit from Petitioner, Department of Transportation, to be located along Krome Avenue, and Petitioner placed a notice on the sign that it was illegal. The sign was displayed on a rolling, four-wheel, flat-bed trailer, and its location was changed every twenty-four hours. The message on the sign was tastefully presented and indicated that Jones & Scully Orchids were located one mile away from the placement of the sign. At the same intersection and along Krome Avenue other advertising signs appeared. Some indicated the presence of agricultural products for sale and others announced cafeteria trucks which were peddling their wares. Respondent asserted, at the hearing, that these signs may be in violation of the permitting requirement but that the signs had not been cited by the Petitioner. However, no proof was demonstrated that these signs were cited as illegal by Petitioner, or if they were in violation of existent law. Respondent operates a worldwide mail order business featuring orchids. Many of its customers seek out the source of the plants. At some time in the past, Respondent had a permanent sign at the location of the business but was required to remove it due to some easement problems. As a result, Respondent suffered an adverse impact on its business, but since the sign at issue has been in operation, the frequency of visits from its customers had increased. The presence of street signs at the corner of Krome Avenue and 168th Street is poor or inconsistent. Local government in Dade County has jurisdiction over the placement of street signs at the intersection. As a merchant in the area, Respondent has attempted to compensate for the lack of street signs by displaying its own directional indicator. Although Respondent's business may suffer from the lack of an advertising or a directional sign, and although the intersection may be poorly indicated, Petitioner's sign is impermissible at the location cited. It rests within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of a federal-aid primary highway and is maintained on a federal-aid primary highway without a permit from Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order providing that the subject sign is in violation of Sections 479.07 and 479.11(1) and requiring the removal of the sign. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 19th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5050T Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraphs 1,2,3 and s. Adopted in paragraph 4. Subordinate to the result reached. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Irrelevant. Addressed, in part, in paragraphs 5, and 6; in part, irrelevant, Addressed in paragraphs 5 and 7. Addressed in Paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9. In part, subordinate to the result reached; in part, irrelevant. Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Rivers Buford, Jr., Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Robert Scully, pro se President The Scully Group, Inc. Jones & Scully Aloha Foliage Growers 18955 Southwest 168th Street Miami, Florida 33187-1112 Ben G. Watts, P.E., Interim Secretary Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, MS 58 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether Petitioner, the owner of an outdoor advertising sign structure with two faces, is entitled to a Vegetation Management Permit for the respective view zones set forth in his application.
Findings Of Fact DOT is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for regulating outdoor advertising signs located within 600 feet of the state highway system, interstates, or federal-aid primary highway system. Petitioner is the owner of a v-shaped outdoor advertising sign structure with two faces located in Broward County, Florida, at the southwest intersection of Interstate 95 (I-95) and Interstate 595 (I-595). The sign structure and both sign faces are legally permitted. Each sign face has a separate tag number. Both tag numbers are permitted for I-95. Neither tag number is permitted to I-595. The sign face with tag number CG158 faces in a northern direction and is visible to southbound traffic on I-95. Tag CG158 is also visible to traffic on I-595 and to traffic on connecting ramps leading on and off of I-595. Tag CG159 faces in a southern direction and is visible to northbound traffic on I-95. A Vegetation Management Permit authorizes the owner of a permitted outdoor advertising sign to maintain the landscaping in the Department of Transportation's (DOT) right-of-way so that the sign is not screened by vegetation. Section 479.106, Florida Statutes, regulates vegetation management in public right-of-way, in relevant part, as follows: The removal, cutting, or trimming of trees or vegetation on public right-of-way to make visible or to ensure future visibility of the facing of a proposed sign or previously permitted sign shall be performed only with the written permission of the department in accordance with the provisions of this section. Any person desiring to engage in the removal, cutting, or trimming of trees or vegetation for the purposes herein described shall make written application to the department. The application shall include the applicant's plan for the removal, cutting, or trimming and for the management of any vegetation planted as part of a mitigation plan. * * * Beautification projects, trees, or other vegetation shall not be planted or located in the view zone of legally erected and permitted outdoor advertising signs which have been permitted prior to the date of the beautification project or other planting, where such planting will, at the time of planting or after future growth, screen such sign from view. View zones are established along the public rights-of-way of interstate highways, expressways, federal-aid primary highways, and the State Highway System in the state, excluding privately or other publicly owned property, as follows: A view zone of 350 feet for posted speed limits of 35 miles per hour or less. A view zone of 500 feet for posted speed limits of over 35 miles per hour. The established view zone shall be within the first 1,000 feet measured along the edge of the pavement in the direction of approaching traffic from a point on the edge of the pavement perpendicular to the edge of the sign facing nearest the highway and shall be continuous unless interrupted by existing, naturally occurring vegetation. The department and the sign owner may enter into an agreement identifying the specific location of the view zone for each sign facing. In the absence of such agreement, the established view zone shall be measured from the sign along the edge of the pavement in the direction of approaching traffic as provided in this subsection. The applicable speed limit is over 35 miles per hour. Consequently, the view zone authorized by section 479.106(6)(a)2. is 500 feet. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.057(1)(d)2., a sign face is entitled to only one view zone within the right-of-way of the roadway to which the sign is permitted. Petitioner submitted with his applications drawings detailing his desired view zones for each sign face on July 11, 2013. Petitioner applied for two view zones for CG158. The requested view zone for I-95 is more than 500 feet and is, consequently, inconsistent with section 479.106(6)(a)2. Petitioner's second requested view zone for CG158 is to I-595. On July 29, 2013, DOT denied Petitioner's application for the requested view zone for Tag CG158 stating: "The view you requested is not allowed. This request exceeds the 500 and 1000 foot threshold set in Florida Statutes." DOT cited section 479.106(6)(a)2. and (b) as its authority. Tag CG158 was also denied for the following reason: "Your request for a view zone to Interstate 595 is not allowed by law. As [sic] your sign CG158 is legally permitted to Interstate 95." DOT again cited section 479.106(6)(a)2. and (b) as its authority. On October 18, 2013, DOT filed an amended notice of denial for Tag CG158 stating: "The view you requested is not allowed. The request exceeds the 500 foot threshold set forth in Florida Statutes." DOT again cited section 479.106(6)(a)2. and (b) as its authority. Tag CG158 was also denied for the following reason: "Your request for a view zone to Interstate 595 is not allowed by Law [sic]. As [sic] your sign CG158 is legally permitted to Interstate 95." DOT cited rule 14-10.057(1)(d) as its authority. Petitioner applied for a view zone for CG159 that is more than 500 feet and is, consequently, inconsistent with section 479.106(6)(a). On July 29, 2013, DOT denied Petitioner's application for the requested view zone for Tag CG159 stating: "The view you requested is not allowed. This request exceeds the 500 foot threshold set in Florida Statutes." DOT cited section 479.106(6)(a)2. and (b) as its authority.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation deny the application for Vegetation Management Permit submitted by Salvatore Romanelli. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 8th day of April, 2014.
Findings Of Fact By notice of alleged violation dated January 19, 1979, the Department charged that the Respondent, Chevron, U.S.A., installed a sign on 1-4, 23.86 miles east of U.S. 301, without a permit in violation of Rule 14-10.04, Florida Administrative Code. The notice also alleged that the sign was too close to an off ramp of 1-4, in violation of Title 23, Section 13, U.S. Code Para. 2(B). The parties stipulated that the sign is located along 1-4, a part of the Federal Interstate Highway Systems which was open to vehicular traffic in 1959-1960 and that the sign is located in the unincorporated area of Polk County. On or about October 22, 1969, the Respondent contracted with Pickett and Associates, of Tampa1 Florida, a general contractor, to construct a complete operating service station at 1-4 and SR 35-A. Included in the contract price was the cost of constructing the sign in question. An engineer for Chevron, J. L. Edgar, requested on June 4, 1969, that Pickett and Associates proceed to obtain all permits prior to construction. Due to no direct fault of the Respondent, the necessary permits to install the sign were never obtained from the Department. This fact was discovered when a sign inspector noticed the sign to be in poor condition and in need of repair. The contractor who erected the sign was contacted regarding the permits but all records relating to this particular job have been discarded. Chevron was unaware that the sign was never permitted until the notice was issued by the Department. The sign is located within five hundred (500) feet of the exit ramp off 1-4 to Kathleen Road (SR 35-A) , as measured from the spot where the road widens to the exit. No evidence was submitted to show that the sign was on the same property of the station or within one hundred (100) feet thereof.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's sign be found in violation of Rule 14- 10.06(1)(b)(2)(b) , Florida Administrative Code and Section 479.07, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of August, 1980. in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. A. Scott Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. 3908 10th Avenue Tampa, Florida 33605 Charles Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for a permit to erect a sign along the north side of SR 688, 500 feet west of U.S. 19 facing east (Exhibit 1). This application was disapproved because the proposed location is within 1000 feet of an existing sign along SR 688, facing in the same direction. With respect to outdoor advertising signs the character of SR 688 and U.S. 19 change at their intersection. North of SR 688 U.S. 19 is a federal-aid primary highway, south of SR 688 U.S. 19 is a federal-aid urban highway. For sign permitting purposes U.S. 19 is a controlled highway north of SR 688 and an uncontrolled highway south of SR 688. Similarly, SR 688 is a federal-aid primary highway east of U.S. 19 and is uncontrolled west of U.S. 19. A duly permitted sign, facing east, is located along the north side of SR 688 approximately 200 feet east of U.S. 19. This sign is within 1000 feet of the location for which Petitioner seeks the permit at issue in these proceedings. The proposed sign is intended to serve westbound traffic along SR 688; however, the sign can be seen by motorists traveling on U.S. 19 while stopped in the middle of the intersection of SR 688 and U.S. 19, but the message on the sign would be unreadable to the naked eye. Respondent contends the proposed sign is governed by the spacing requirements because the sign is located within 660 feet of the right-of-way of the federal-aid primary highway portion of U.S. 19.
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, Catalina Homes, Inc., owns an outdoor advertising sign with two faces which is situated on State Road 50, 2.9 miles west of State Road 435, in Orange County, Florida. This sign faces eastbound and westbound traffic on State Road 50, and the location is not within any city or town. State Road 50 is a federal-aid primary road, and it is open to traffic. The subject sign is visible from the main traveled way of State Road 50. Orange County is a zoned county, and the zoning at the location where the Respondent's sign is situated is agricultural. There are not three business locations within 800 feet of the Respondent's sign and the subject sign is within 660 feet of the right-of-way of State Road 50. The Respondent's sign is approximately 750 feet from a sign which has been permitted to Cashi Signs, Inc. The Cashi sign is located to the east of the Respondent's sign, on the same side of the road. There has been no state sign permit issued for either face of the Respondent's sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's two-faced sign situated on State Road 50, 2.9 miles west of State Road 435, facing eastbound and westbound traffic, in Orange County, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 16th 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 16th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Hon. Paul A. Pappas Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Secretary Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Department of Transporation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Robert A. Bruno Vice-President Catalina Homes, Inc. 1344 West Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32804
Findings Of Fact On or about June 10, 1977, the Department issued permit number 2740-12 to the Respondent, Lamar Advertising Company, authorizing the erection of a sign on the east side of I-110, .4 mile north of SR 296 in Escambia County, Florida. On or about August 7, 1978, this permit was reported lost and the Department issued a replacement tag numbered AN498-35. The latter permit is the subject of this proceeding. Prior to the issuance of the original permit in 1977, the site was field inspected and approved by Department personnel. The Respondent's representative who submitted the permit application designated on this application that the sign location was in an unzoned area within 800 feet of a business. This representative also certified on the application that the sign to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The only commercial or industrial activity that was located within 600 feet of the right-of-way of I-110, and within 800 feet of the site where the Respondent's sign was to be erected, was a brick building which had been constructed in 1977 by Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising. This building contains 800 to 1,000 square feet, and it was used as a sketch office by Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising. One employee works inside doing art work, and three salesmen use the office to make telephone calls and pick up messages. The Salter building has been constructed without windows on the back side, which is the side facing the interstate. This building is not directly on the interstate, but is located on a street back off I-110 in an unzoned area containing houses and trailer homes. This area is residential in nature, and the Salter building is the only business in the immediate vicinity. The landscape along I-110 where the subject sign is located slopes upward from the interstate to where the Salter building stands, and the area between the interstate and the Salter building is covered with foliage. In the summer months the area between I-110 and the site of the Salter building is almost completely obscured by this foliage, but during the winter when the foliage has thinned a portion of the rear of the Salter building can be seen from the interstate. There is an area in front of and on the sides of the Salter building, away from the interstate, where cars can be parked. Salesmen, workmen and customers come and go daily, using these areas for parking. However, due to the slope of the ground between the Salter building and I-110, the interstate is at such a downward angle from the building that none of these activities can be seen from I-110. There is no sign on or around the Salter building to indicate that it contains a business, and there is nothing else about either the building or the area to identify the one as a business structure or the other as a commercial area. In summary, the Bill Salter building houses a business which is located with 660 feet of the interstate, and the subject sign is within 800 feet of this business, but there are no business activities that can be seen from the main- traveled way of I-110. This location is essentially the same now as it was in 1977 when the permit was issued. In October of 1984, the site was inspected by the Department's Right- of-Way Administrator who determined that the permit had been issued in error because there was no visible commercial activity within 800 feet of the sign. In November of 1984, the Department issued a Notice of Violation advising the Respondent that the subject permit was being revoked because the sign had not been erected in a zoned or unzoned commercial area.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit number AN 498-35 held by the Respondent, Lamar Advertising Company, authorizing a sign located on the east side of I-110, .4 mile north of SR 296 in Escambia County, Florida, be revoked, and the subject sign removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 14th 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 14th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Robert P. Gaines, Esquire P. O. Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
