The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Transportation, is entitled to remove a certain sign allegedly owned by the Respondent and allegedly located on State Read 814, 800 feet east of Powerline Road in Pompano Reach, Florida. The stated grounds for this removal are for the failure to have a permit under the terms and conditions of Subsection 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, and the alleged improper spacing of this sign, vis-a-vis, other signs in the vicinity, in violation of Section 479.025, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Transportation, is entitled to remove a certain sign allegedly owned by the Respondent and allegedly located on State Road 84, 600 feet east of U.S. 441 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The stated grounds for this removal are for the failure to have a permit under the terms and conditions of Subsection 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, and the alleged improper spacing of this sign, vis-a-vis, other signs in the vicinity, in violation of Section 479.025, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Transportation's allegations against the Respondent, William E. Beal, d/b/a Beal Sign Service, which allegations charged the Respondent Beal with violations of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Transportation, is an agency of State Government charged with the function of carrying out the conditions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and such rules as have been promulgated to effect that charge. The Respondent, William E. Beal, d/b/a Beal Sign Service, is a business enterprise licensed under Section 479.04, Florida Statutes, to do business as an outdoor advertiser in the State of Florida. The Petitioner, through its form statement letter of violation and attached bill of particulars has accused the Respondent of violations pertaining to two signs. The stated violations alleged against each sign are common, in that the Respondent is accused in both instances of not having a permit as required by Subsection 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.04(1), Florida Administrative Cede, and is additionally charged in the case of both signs with maintaining improper spacing in violation of Section 479.025, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code. The facts of the case reveal that the first sign in contention is located on State Road 814, which is also known as Atlantic Boulevard, in Broward County, Florida. The copy of that sign contains the language, World Famous Restaurant, Kapok Tree Inn." This sign is depicted in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence, which is a photograph of the sign. The second sign in contention is located on State Road 84 and is depicted in the photograph which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence, and it carries the copy, "Villas of Arista Park." This particular sign is located in Broward County, Florida. Both of the signs in question are owned by the Respondent, Beal, and have been constructed by his business concern. The sign located on State Road 814 faces east and is 330 feet away from the nearest sign, which faces east; the latter sign has a permit and is owned by the Respondent. The disputed sign is part of a double-faced construction with the second side facing west. The sign on State Road 84 also faces east and is 292 feet away from the next sign, which faces east. The next nearest east-facing sign is permitted and is owned by the Respondent. Again, the disputed sign on State Road 84 is part of a double-faced apparatus whose second face is located in a westerly direction. The west faces of the signs have the proper State permits; however, the east faces, which are in dispute in this proceeding, do not have the proper State permits required by Subsection 479.07(1), Florida Statutes. That provision reads: "479.07 Individual device permits; fees; tags.-- Except as in this chapter otherwise provided, no person shall construct, erect, operate, use, maintain, or cause or permit to be constructed, erected, operated, used or maintained any outdoor advertising structure, outdoor advertising sign or outdoor advertisement, outside any incorporated city or town, without first obtaining a permit therefor from the department, and paying the annual fee therefor, as herein provided. Any person who shall construct, erect, operate, use, or maintain, or cause or permit to be constructed, erected, operated, used, or maintained, any outdoor advertising structure, outdoor advertising sign, or outdoor advertisement along any federal aid primary highway or interstate highway within any incorporated city or town shall apply for a permit on a form provided by the department. A permanent permit tag of the kind hereinafter provided shall be issued by the department without charge and shall be affixed to the sign in the manner provided in subsection (4). The department shall not issue such a permit to any person in the business of outdoor advertising who has not obtained the license provided for in s.479.04." The sign at State Road 814 which is in dispute is neither a federal- aid primary highway nor interstate highway. It is a part of the state road system in the State of Florida. Nonetheless, it is outside any incorporated city or town and would require a permit. The sign at State Road 84, which has been referred to through the statement of violation, is in an unincorporated area of Broward County and would require a permit. In addition, it is a sign located on a federal-aid primary highway. The conclusion reached on the necessity of the Respondent to have the subject signs permitted is reached through an examination of the history of the two signs in question and the west-faced construction at the location of the two signs which are in controversy. In 1971 the Respondent applied to the Broward County Building and Zoning Department to he granted a permit to construct a single-faced, non- illuminated sign at the location, State Road 814. That request was granted and a single sign was constructed, which is the west-faced sign at the location. That sign remains today. A copy of the application for that sign permit may he found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Some time in January, 1978, and as indicated by the document for application, January 6, 1978, the Respondent filed a request with the Petitioner for a permit for the east face that is disputed in the course of this hearing pertaining to the location on State Road 814, with the copy, Kapok Tree Inn. No prior permit had been issued for the construction of that east face through the offices of the Petitioner, nor to the knowledge of the Petitioner's employees had any permit been granted by Broward County for such a sign. A couple of days after the application was made for the permit for the east face of the sign on State Road 814, the sign structure itself was built. That structure was constructed at a time when the permit request had not been approved. Subsequent to the construction, an employee of the petitioner informed the Respondent that the permit request had not been approved and in August, 1978, the fees for such a permit were returned to the Respondent. The explanation for not approving the request for permit was due to the failure to comply with the Rule 14- 10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to spacing between signs. (In addition, it was established in the hearing that the Petitioner was reluctant to approve the applications for either the State Road 814 or the State Road 84 signs in view of a certain action on the part of Broward County against the Respondent's east-facing signs on State Road 814 and State Road 84 for alleged non-compliance with the Broward County Ordinance, Section 39-946 and Chapter 42-4203.I, South Florida Building Code. The action with Broward County is still pending.) The permit application for the east-faced sign on State Road 84, which is the subject of this controversy, was made as notarized January 5, 1978. The history of the Respondent's signs located at this particular position is traced through an examination of the Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, which is a copy of the permit application filed with the Broward County Building and Zoning Department in 1974, requesting the right to construct and be permitted for a double-faced sign. That permit was granted and the west face was constructed and utilized by the Respondent and a proper permit still remains in effect. It is unclear from the record at what point the easternmost face of the double-faced sign was constructed, but it is clear that the east face was existent with the aforementioned copy in place when an employee of the Petitioner inspected the sign as a prerequisite to issuing the permit and on an inspection discovered that the sign was only 292 feet away from the next sign which faced east located on the road. The import of the Respondent's testimony did, however, seem to suggest that the west face of the double-faced sign was constructed at a time before the east face. Moreover, the Respondent by asking for the permit appeared to be of the opinion that the permit for the west face was insufficient in itself to meet permitting requirements for the east face. The east face of the sign at State Road 84 aid not have a state permit when it was inspected by the Petitioner's employee and to the knowledge of the Petitioner never had been permitted. Petitioner notified the Respondent that the sign at State Road 84, which is under consideration in this case, purportedly violated the provision in Section 479.025, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to spacing. This notification was through the Notice of Violation of February 15, 1978, and was tantamount to informing the Respondent that the permit application had been rejected. Even though a double-faced sign application was made with Broward County in 1974 for the sign apparatus to be located in the position on State Road 84, the requested utilization of the east face did not come about until January, 1978, and the Broward County permission to construct a double-faced sign did not grant the Respondent license which would allay the necessity of gaining a permit from the Petitioner to utilize the east face of that sign. Having established that no permit existed for the two signs in question at the time the Notice of Violation was filed on February 15, 1978, and having established the need for such a permit, there remains to be determined the question of whether or not the signs violated requirements for spacing purportedly found in Section 479.025, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14- 10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Cede. (Section 479.025, Florida Statutes, does not apply because it was repealed by Chapter 77-104, Laws of Florida, effective August 2, 1977.) Rule 14-10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code, establishes the requirement that "no two structures shall be spaced less than five hundred (500) feet apart on the same side of the highway facing the same direction." This requirement only applies to federal-aid primary highway; therefore, it would not have application to State Road 814, which is not a federal-aid primary highway. Consequently, the spacing requirements could not stand as a basis for denying the permit application as it pertains to the sign on State Road 814. Rule 14-.0.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code, would have application to State Road 84, which is a federal-aid primary highway. In view of the fact that the next east-facing sign on State Road 84, which is most adjacent to the sign on State Road 84 in dispute, is 292 feet from the structure on State Road 84, the disputed sign violates Rule 14-10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code, as being less than five hundred (500) feet from the next adjacent sign on the same side of the highway and facing the same direction, and a permit should not be issued because of this violation of the spacing requirement. It should be mentioned that the Respondent has claimed the theory of estoppel in the course of the hearing on the question of the right to obtain permits for the signs and to avoid their removal. The theory of that claim of estoppel is that the Petitioner has failed to comply with Rule 14-10.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, on the requirements for permit approval and is estopped from denying the permit application. That provision states: "14-10.04 Permits. Permit Approval Upon receipt of Form 178-501 from an outdoor advertiser, the District will record the date received in the lower right hand corner of the form. Within fifteen days of the receipt the application must be approved and forwarded to the Central Office or returned to the applicant. The sign site must be inspected by an outdoor advertising inspector, to assure that the sign(s) will not be in violation of the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, Title 23, Section 131, U.S. Code and local governmental regulations. If all these requirements are met and the measurements are correct, the inspector stamps the application 'Approved', signs it and dates his signature. Where two applications from different advertisers conflict with each other or are competing for the same site the first application received by the district office will be the first considered for approval. If the first one received is approved the second application will be disapproved and returned to the advertiser. Although the facts show that the Petitioner did not approve and forward the permit application to the Central Office or return it to the applicant within fifteen days as required, the Respondent went forward with his construction and/or utilization of the signs in question without receiving a permit which allowed for such construction and/or utilization. In the case of the sign at State Road 814, the sign was constructed before the expiration of the fifteen day period within which time the Petitioner could respond to the application. Furthermore, Rule 14-10.04(2), Florida Administrative Code, clearly indicates that no permit exists until the permit tag is issued, and the permit tag is not issued unless the District Office approves the permit application request. In both instances, the permit application request was not approved and a permit tag was not issued; and there being no entitlement to a default permit upon the expiration of a fixed period of time, and the Respondent having acted without permission to construct and/or utilize the signs and there being no facts proven which established the necessary reliance condition as a prerequisite to a claim of estoppel, estoppel does not pertain. That provision of Rule 14-10.04(2), Florida Administrative Code, states: "14-10.04 Permits. Permits Issued Upon Approval: Upon receipt of the approved application with payment of the permit fee, the Outdoor Advertising Section, Central Office, issues the permit tag. The tag will be issued within 30 days of receipt in the District Office. The advertiser shall attach the permit tag to the face of the advertising structure, advertising sign or advertisement on the end nearest the highway in a manner that shall cause it to be plainly visible but not readily accessible by the general public." At best, the Respondent could have inquired of the Petitioner at a time thirty (30) days from the receipt of the two applications to determine why the applications had not been approved or returned to the Respondent. And in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, moved in the appropriate forum to mandate compliance with Rule 14-10.04, Florida Administrative Code. Instead, the Respondent moved at his own jeopardy to construct and/or utilize the two subject signs, which are indicated in the Notice of Violation, and by doing so ran the risk that he would not gain the necessary permits and would stand to have the signs removed under the provision of Section 479.17, Florida Statutes. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner is not estopped from requesting the removal of those signs.
Recommendation It is recommended that the signs located at State Road 814 and State Road 84 that are the subject matter of this dispute be removed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building MAILING ADDRESS: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nancy Severs, Esquire Miller, Squire & Braverman 500 Northeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether a billboard structure is in compliance with Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating outdoor advertising signs located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the State Highway System, interstate, or Federal-Aid Primary system in accordance with Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Lamar is in the business of providing outdoor signs for entities wishing to advertise. Lamar owns the sign at the northeast corner of the intersection of Betton Road and Thomasville Road in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. The sign was built in 1980 and rebuilt in June 1997. The sign has two sides. One side faces Betton Road, and is visible only to persons on Betton Road. The Department does not assert that a permit is required for that side. The other side of the sign, facing to the west, is within 660 feet of Thomasville Road, which is also referred to as State Route 61, and is visible from Thomasville Road. In 1974, State Route 61 was known as U. S. Highway 319. It was a Federal-Aid Primary route. On June 24, 1974, a road denominated Capital Circle located on the outskirts of Tallahassee, was designated U.S. Highway 319. Thomasville Road although no longer a part of U.S. Highway 319, continued to bear the name State Route 61 and remained a Federal-Aid Primary route. In 1983 the Federal Highway Administration listed both Capital Circle and State Route 61 as Federal-Aid Primary routes. In 1991, the Federal Highway Administration created the National Highway System and ceased using Federal-Aid Primary designations. State Route 61, also known as Thomasville Road, nevertheless remained a Federal-Aid Primary road for outdoor advertising classification purposes at all times pertinent to this case. For federal highway identification purposes, the road is currently in the Surface Transportation Program. Prior to May 23, 1996, Lamar held an outdoor advertising permit pursuant to Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, for this sign. The sign was assigned tag number BG 518-35. On May 23, 1996, the Department issued a "Notice of Violation--Signs for Which Permits Have Been Issued," addressing permit number BG 518-35. This notice indicates that it was sent to Lamar via registered mail, return receipt requested. It informed that the sign was in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-10 because the sign: "May not be maintained without permission of the person lawfully controlling site (479.11(9), FS)." On July 31, 1996, in a letter signed by District Outdoor Advertising Manager Vicki L. Davis, the Department notified Lamar that, because the Department had received a statement of loss of landowner's permission for the sign bearing tag number BG 518-35, Lamar was required to remove the sign. The Department included a "certificate of cancellation" with the letter. Lamar admits that it voluntarily canceled its permit for the sign in August 1997. Subsequently, the sign remained with its permit tag attached, unmolested by the Department for approximately 11 years. In January 1997, Lamar acquired a separate monopole structure bearing two signs with tag numbers BN 504 and BN 505. These signs are less than 200 feet to the north of the subject sign. During a 2007 inspection, an agent for the Department observed the subject sign. It still bore tag number BG 518-35. On March 14, 2007, the Department issued the "Notice of Violation-Illegally Erected Sign" addressed above. As noted before, the violation was based on the sign's having no permit.
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 sign is a public or private nuisance and requiring that it be removed as provided in Subsection 479.105(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and dismissing case number 08-1137. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Susan Schwartz, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 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 Stephanie Kopelousos, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact In May, 1982, Respondent entered into a 10 year lease with the owner of certain real estate on the East side of I-95, a federal highway now and at the time in issue, in Palm Beach County, Florida, for the erection of an advertising signboard. The site in question was located 850 feet more or less north of the intersection of I-95 with State Road 710. In order to get both state and county permits for this sign, Respondent had a survey made of the area to determine if the site of the proposed sign was more that 1,000 feet from the closest sign on the same side of the highway so as to conform to the requirements of the pertinent statute and DOT rules. This survey, completed in June, 1982, indicated that the proposed site for Respondent's sign was 1040 feet from the closest billboard on the same side of the highway. This survey, however, was not done in such a manner as to accurately indicate the distance in question because the base lines for measurement were not perpendicular to the edge of the pavement. The sign was not erected immediately, however, and to be sure that the siting was accurate, Respondent again, in July, 1983, had another survey performed by a different surveyor which reflected that the distance between the Respondent's sign and that next north of it was in excess of 1000 feet. The Respondent was issued two permits for the sign in question and has received annual renewals of those permits in 1984, 1985, and 1986. The permits in question are AH 297-12 and AH 298-12. At no time has Petitioner indicated any intention to revoke either of these permits. The billboard next north of the sign in issue here was erected by Respondent on property leased in May, 1977. This earlier dual-sided sign was issued permits number 2721 and 2722. Apparently, the tags for these permits were lost as on April 24, 1980, DOT issued new tag numbers to Respondent, AC 133-12 for 2721, and AC 134-12 for 2722. Later on, in May, 1984, Mr. Fred J. Harper, District Administrator for Petitioner, having reason to believe the two signs were too close, measured the distance between the southern and northern signs involved here. He took three separate measurements; one with an electronic odometer, one with a walking wheel belonging to DOT, and the third with a walking wheel belonging to Respondent's representative. In each of the three measurements, Mr. Harper attempted to measure from a baseline to endline each of which was perpendicular running from the post to the edge of the pavement. Though his perpendiculars were not measured by instruments, he is satisfied from his eight years of experience in his current position that his eye is accurate enough to minimize error. The three measurements made along the edge of the roadway, reflected distances of 884, 888, and 886 feet, respectively. To confirm these measurements, Mr. Harper contacted the District Surveyor, Mr. McCarthy, and requested a survey be done to establish the distance. Though he did not personally go to the site with the surveyor, he did point it out on maps and aerial surveys of the area. The survey by DOT surveyors was done by or under the supervision of Mr. McCarthy. The measurements were based on a starting point at the center line of the I-95 right of way down a line perpendicular to each pole with a 90 degree turn at the pole toward the other pole. The distance between the two poles, determined by an electronic distance measuring device, was no more than 894.4 feet. The Department notified Respondent of this in writing. This distance was not measured along the edge of the pavement, as called for in Rule 14-10.06(1)(b)4b, Florida Administrative Code, but, according to Mr. McCarthy, even if it had been, the distance in this case would have been only about 20 feet more than the 894.4 feet measured due to the slight curve in the road. In any case, the total distance would have remained under 1,000 feet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED That: Petitioner, Department of Transportation enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's sign permits AH 297-12 and AH 298-12, and directing the signs be removed. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of December, 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-2248T The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Covered in Findings of Fact 1, 3, 4 and 7. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 2 and 7. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Incorporated in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 7. Paragraph 1 - approved. Paragraph 2 - approved. Paragraph 3 - approved. Approved. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as conjecture after the fact. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the Respondent's sign, as described in the Notice of Hearing and in the violation issued herein, was in conformity with the Department requirements, as well as whether the Department is liable for damage to the sign caused by it's removal.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein, the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, was the state agency responsible for regulating the erection and use of advertising signs adjacent to state right-of-way highways in this state. The Respondent, Horseshoe Cove Resort, Inc., was a commercial enterprise and the owner of the sign in question. On August 31, 1989, in the course of his duties as an inspector in the Department's outdoor advertising division, Joseph V. Hanrahan saw the Respondent's sign, which was erected adjacent to and within 1,000 feet of another, permitted, sign, located approximately 25 feet west of 60th Street East, on the northbound side of State Road 70 in Manatee County, Florida. State Road 70 is a primary highway, and the sign, a 1 x 3 foot electrified sign, located on a pole approximately 20 feet above the ground, was visible from the road. This sign was required to be permitted because it is an "off site" sign, ( a sign situated away from the advertised enterprise ). The sign appeared to be in violation of Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and Mr. Hanrahan issued violation No. 1-13-30, which noted that the sign was not properly permitted, and which instructed the owner to remove it within 30 days of the date of the notice of violation. The sign had been erected by Magee Sign Service which was paid by the Respondent to construct and erect it. A county permit had been issued for the sign, but no state sign permit had been obtained. The notice of violation issued by Mr. Hanrahan was mailed to the Respondent and was received by it on September 5, 1989. The sign was not removed within 30 days. Therefore, on June 19, 1990, a contractor, working for the Department, cut the sign down, and by letter dated that same day, the Department advised Respondent the sign had been removed persuant to the violation. It also advised Respondent that under the provisions of Section 479.105, Florida Statutes, Horseshoe Cove was being charged $50.00 as the cost of removal. After the sign was removed, Mr. Williams, Respondent's manager, called Mr. Dunsford, the Department's District Manager, regarding the removal, and in response to that call, Mr. Dunsford advised Mr. Williams in writing how to request a hearing. The violation notice sent to Respondent in August, 1989, states that the owner of the sign had 30 days to remove it. Even though the statute in effect at that time provided for the cost of removal to be borne by the owner, the form did not so state. In early 1990, the form was amended to include a notice regarding cost of removal. In this case, the only notice submitted to Respondent by the Department prior to the sign being removed was the violation notice. According to Mr. Williams, shortly after he received the violation notice in August, 1989, in September, 1989 he wrote to the Department advising them he believed the sign was a part of the contiguous permitted sign. Along with that letter, Mr. Williams enclosed $50.00 to show a good faith effort to correct the problem. This $50.00 was subsequently returned by the Department. Upon the advice of Mr. Hanrahan, Williams contacted Magee Sign Service to see if a bracket could be fashioned to affix the offending sign to the adjacent billboard. Magee advised him that county regulations prohibited that. This is true. Williams then called Mr. Hanrahan to see if he would contact Mr. Prettyman, an official in the county planning office who permitted signs, to see if some arrangement could be made to preserve the sign, but in the interim, it was removed by the Department. All during this time, Mr. Williams was a member of the County Planning Commission and saw Prettyman at most meetings. He did not ever discuss the sign problem with him, however, claiming the meetings "offered little or no time for other business." A post - meeting discussion, or contacts at other times, were not addressed. Hanrahan admits to being asked by Williams to speak with Prettyman and claims he did so. He also claims that Prettyman declined to issue the required permit. Hanrahan cannot recall whether he advised Williams of this or not, but it appears he did not. Williams claims he expected to hear back from Hanrahan on the matter, and now claims that had Hanrahan told him timely of Prettyman's refusal, he would have removed the sign then without destroying it. He also claims not to have known the state would hire a contractor to remove it or that there would be a cost involved. The cost is provided for by statute, however. His claims of lack of knowledge are not impressive and do not justify Respondent's inaction. Notwithstanding that the contractor is required to remove the sign below ground surface, to fill the hole remaining, and to clean the area, according to Mr. Williams, the metal support pole was cut 1 1/2 inches above the ground and the internal electrical wires were cut at the junction box leaving live electrical wires open. When Mr. Williams saw the pole stub, he did not notify the Department but instead, had his own maintenance people correct the problem. Even after the notice of violation, Respondent, though trying to arrange for the sign to be made "legal" at no time applied for a state permit for the offending sign. Williams claims that Magee did apply for a permit but was denied, but no independent evidence to that effect was presented.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the removal of the offending sign in question, assessing a $50.00 fee against Respondent for removal costs, and denying Respondent reimbursement for the cost of the destroyed sign. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1991. Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 E. H. Williams Horseshoe Cove Resort, Inc. 5100 69th Street East Bradenton, Florida 34203 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0468 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 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 On March 24, 1982, the Department received the Respondent's applications for two permits for signs proposed to be erected on the west side of Interstate 95 approximately 1400 feet north of the intersection of Linton Boulevard, outside the city limits of Delray Beach, Florida. The proposed signs were back-to-back, one facing north and one facing south. Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County is part of the Federal Interstate Highway Systems, and at the times which are pertinent to this proceeding I-95 was open for use by the public. On April 29, 1982, the Department approved the two sign applications which the Respondent had applied for, and issued tag numbers AG 732-12 and AG 733-12. The signs for which the subject permits were issued were not erected. On March 9, 1983, the Department informed the Respondent that State Sign Permits numbered 732-12 and 733-12, for the signs which are the subject of this proceeding, were being revoked for the reason that the location is within 500 feet of a restricted interchange. The site of the proposed signs is 1400 feet from the intersection of Linton Boulevard and Interstate 95, but this site is also within 500 feet of the beginning of the narrowing of the exit ramp from I-95 at its connection with Linton Boulevard, measured linearly along the road right-of-way. The Department concedes that it issued the subject sign permits in error. The Respondent spent or incurred expenses for poles, permits, storage of poles, delivery of poles, office costs, attorney fees, and labor, in connection with the signs proposed to be erected at the subject site, and the Respondent was not able to consummate the negotiations with Holiday Inn for rental of the proposed signs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the permits issued by the Department to the Respondent for back-to-back signs on the west side of Interstate 95, approximately 1400 feet north of the Linton Boulevard interchange in Palm Beach County, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 21 day of October, 1983, 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 21st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Harold A. Greene, Esquire 1578 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 83-1134T INTERNATIONAL BILLBOARD ADVERTISING, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact On 30 April 1976 Salter Advertising Company's application to locate a sign facing north on Salter-owned property off the I-110 near the intersection of Scott and Alcaniz Streets, Pensacola, Florida, was approved (Exhibit 1). By application dated 12 November 1976 Salter requested authorization to erect a sign at the same location facing south (Exhibit 8). This application was disapproved by the District sign inspector on December 20, 1976. What happened to the original of Exhibit 8 was not disclosed at the hearing. On a duplicate original of this application, which was introduced as Exhibit 9, the disapproval on the duplicate original application was erased or whited-out and under date 5-2-77, this application was approved by the District Sign Coordinator, the supervisor of the inspector who had disapproved Exhibit 8. The copy introduced as Exhibit 8 differs from Exhibit 9 in several respects. In the first place it is a carbon copy of what appears to have been the original of Exhibit 8. The "received" stamps dated November 24, 1976, December 13, 1976, and December 21, 1976, appear at different places on Exhibits 8 and 9; Exhibit 8 contains a "returned" stamp with date of 11/15/76 which does not appear on Exhibit 9; Exhibit 9 contains a "received" stamp dated April 29, 1977 which does not appear on Exhibit 8; and Exhibit 9 shows sign to be facing both S and W, while Exhibit 8 shows sign facing S only. The reason given for disapproving Exhibit 8 contained in letter dated January 31, 1977, (Exhibit 5), was that there was inadequate space to place a sign at the location proposed because of the City of Pensacola's setback line 50 feet from the center line of Alcaniz Street. This same condition exists respecting the application approved in Exhibit 1. Accordingly, no sign has been erected at the location despite the approval of the South and West facing sign approved in Exhibit 9. In November of 1976 Respondent contacted Petitioner's sign inspector for Pensacola and arranged to meet at the site of the sign proposed in Exhibits 2 and 4. The property at this location was for sale and Respondent wanted to know if it was suitable for a sign. At this time it was customary for the official who approved the application to go to the site before the application was submitted and advise whether or not an application for a sign at the location would be approved. At the on-site meeting the inspector advised Respondent that approval for the intended sign would be forthcoming. Respondent then purchased the property, submitted the application for sign approval and erected the sign at a cost of some $12,000. The testimony, that it was customary for an applicant after receiving on-site approval, to erect the sign before receiving formal approval of its application for sign permit, was not rebutted. The sign erected by Respondent is located approximately 300 feet from the site for which Salter received approval of its application in Exhibits 1 and The I-110 is part of the interstate system.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the decision of the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board denying Petitioner's application for a variance for certain signage is supported by the evidence in the record, or whether it departs from the essential requirements of law. See Section 137.014(f)(3), City of Clearwater Land Development Code.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 2, 1989, the Petitioner applied for a variance concerning certain signage on its property located at 2626 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, in Clearwater, Florida, which is zoned CH (highway commercial). At hearing, Petitioner abandoned its variance request concerning total square footage of its signage, and stated that the only variance presently by the Petitioner is for 21 feet in height to allow a 41 foot high pole sign to remain after October 13, 1992. This is an sign which has been in place since 1971, and, thus, was in place when the pertinent provisions of the Land Development Code governing sign height were enacted. The Petitioner does not propose to change this sign in any way, but simply seeks authorization to retain the sign after October 13, 1992, the date on which all nonconforming signs must be brought into compliance. Petitioner's property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of U.S. 19 and Gulf to Bay Boulevard. At that point, U.S. 19 passes over Gulf to Bay Boulevard, and Petitioner contends that without the additional 21 feet in height, this sign will not be visible to motorists along U.S. 19, or to those approaching this intersection driving east on Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Without a variance, Petitioner will be required to bring this sign into conformance with the signage height requirements of the Land Development Code by October 13, 1992, and for property zoned CH, the maximum height allowed for signs is twenty feet. The Development Code Adjustment Board denied Petitioner's variance application on September 14, 1989, and Petitioner timely filed this appeal of the Board's decision. The only reason given in support of this variance is that without the continued authorization for the additional height, this sign will be of little economic benefit to Petitioner after October 13, 1992, and Petitioner would be unwilling to expend the funds necessary to reduce the height of this sign since the resulting 20 foot high sign would be of little benefit. Petitioner would rather just remove the sign than to have a 20 foot high sign that is of no economic benefit, according to Nichols.
The Issue At issue in these consolidated proceedings is whether the permits for signs bearing tag numbers BT339, AE862, and AX116 should be revoked, pursuant to Section 479.08, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Lamar owns and maintains outdoor advertising signs in the State of Florida. Pursuant to the permitting requirements of Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, the Department issues permits and tags to outdoor advertising signs along interstate and federal-aid primary highway systems. Signs that met permitting criteria at the time they were erected, but that do not comply with subsequently enacted laws or that no longer comply with the law due to changed conditions, may nonetheless be permitted and maintained as "nonconforming signs."1 In compliance with Subsection 479.02(8), Florida Statutes, the Department in 1997 and 1998 conducted a statewide inventory of all signs on the state interstate and federal-aid primary highway systems. This inventory became the database for all signs permitted at the time it was completed. The Department sent the inventory results to all sign owners in order to provide them an opportunity to confirm or challenge the accuracy of the results. The database includes the location of the sign; the dates the sign was permitted and constructed; its date and method of construction; the height, including the Height Above Ground Level ("HAGL"); the height, width, and square footage of the sign facing; the number and type of support structures used; whether the sign is lighted or not; the status of the sign as a conforming, nonconforming, or illegal sign; and other identifying information. Subsection 479.02(8), Florida Statutes, provides that the inventory of signs is to be updated no less than every two years. The Department in fact performs the update every year. In 2004, a series of hurricanes passed through Florida, destroying or damaging thousands of outdoor advertising signs. The Department issued notices of intent to revoke the permits of nonconforming signs that appeared to have been destroyed by the storms. In February 2005, the Department and Lamar entered into a settlement agreement that allowed Lamar to rebuild some signs and required the removal of others. The signs at issue in this proceeding were among those allowed to remain standing with repair. As to these signs, the settlement agreement provided: The outdoor advertising signs referenced above remain lawfully erected nonconforming signs and LAMAR may repair said signs, provided that said repair shall be at the pre-storm location and to pre-storm specifications, including configuration, type of materials, height, size, area of face and lighting. Exceptions to pre-storm specifications will be allowed to the extent required to comply with local building codes. Such repairs shall be completed within 270 days of entry of a Final Order approving this Joint Stipulation of Settlement. The referenced Final Order was entered on March 15, 2005. The Department issued permit numbers 13778 and 137790 and tag numbers BT339 (replaced by tag number CF221 at the time of the hearing) and AE862 to a nonconforming, back-to-back sign located along U.S. 1 in Martin County, .08 miles north of Constitution Boulevard in Hobe Sound. At the time of the 1997 inventory, the Martin County sign was a five-pole wooden structure. The Martin County sign sustained heavy damage during the 2004 hurricanes. After the storms, Lamar sent a work crew to the sign's location to rebuild the sign. The work crew replaced the sign with a four-pole wooden structure. Dave Henry, the real estate leasing manager for Lamar, testified that he gave the crew no particular instruction on how to rebuild the sign. During the rebuilding process, Mr. Henry gave his crews the locations, and told them to rebuild the signs as they had been before the storms. Mr. Henry stated that the crew probably looked at the remains of the damaged sign, saw only four stumps in the ground, and assumed that the original sign had only four supports. On March 21, 2006, the Department issued a Notice to Lamar, stating that the sign bearing tag numbers BT339 and AE862 "has been structurally changed and is no longer substantially the same as it was on the date it became nonconforming, in violation of s. [sic] 14-10.007(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code Rule." On February 20, 2007, a Recommended Order was entered in Lamar South Florida v. Department of Transportation, Case No. 06-3281 (DOAH February 20, 2007). In that case, Judge R. Bruce McKibben recommended that the Department withdraw a Notice issued to Lamar South Florida because the Notice failed to specify exactly which changes to the sign in question caused the sign to be in violation of the Department's rules. Rather, the Notice merely provided a citation to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2)(a). In a final order dated May 21, 2007, the Department accepted Judge McKibben's recommendation, and acknowledged the "apparent confusion" regarding the running of the 30-day notice period and the nature of the notice required to trigger the running of that period. As a result of the Lamar South Florida case, the Department began to issue Notices that contained more specific information regarding the alleged violations. On July 31, 2007, the Department sent Lamar a replacement Notice for the Martin County sign, adding a more specific description of the violation, which stated that the sign "has been structurally modified in violation of s. [sic] 14-10.007(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code Rule: the number of supports has changed."2 The replacement notice also added the following provision: REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT(S) WILL BECOME FINAL thirty (30) days from your receipt of this notice unless you provide information to the Department showing the Notice was issued in error OR you correct the violation within 30 days of your receipt of this Notice, and provide evidence of the correction to the Department. For nonconforming signs, while you may correct the violation, you may not exceed the allowable maintenance standards as stated in s. 14-10.007(2), F.A.C. Lamar did not act within 30 days of the Notice to correct the violation and restore the Martin County sign to a five-pole structure. Mr. Henry testified that a fifth pole was added to the structure on November 16, 2007. The Department issued permit number 7359 and tag number AX116 to a nonconforming, single-faced sign in Polk County along U.S. 27, .141 miles east of Heatherwood Boulevard in Lake Wales. On November 22, 1997, the Polk County sign was inventoried and photographed as a seven-pole wooden structure. Lamar did not own the sign at the time the 2004 hurricanes damaged it. Lamar acquired the Polk county sign in 2005, after it had been rebuilt as a six-pole structure. On March 21, 2006, the Department issued a Notice to Lamar, stating that the sign bearing tag number AX116 "has been structurally changed and is no longer substantially the same as it was on the date it became nonconforming, in violation of s. [sic] 14-10.007(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code." On July 31, 2007, the Department sent Lamar a replacement Notice for the Polk County sign, adding a more specific description of the violation which stated that the sign "has been structurally modified in violation of s. [sic] 14- 10.007(2), Florida Administrative Code: the number of supports has changed. . .".3 The replacement notice also contained the language quoted at finding of fact 14, supra. Lamar did not act within 30 days of the Notice to correct the violation and restore the Polk County sign to a seven-pole structure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation revoking the permits for the nonconforming signs bearing tag numbers BT339, AE862, and AX116. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent has erected or maintained a sign in the right-of-way of State Road 37 and, if so, should it be removed.
Findings Of Fact On April 15, 1993, Petitioner, the Department of Transportation, served a Notice of Violation on Respondent, Haven Furniture Co., Inc., advising that it had erected and maintained a portable sign, a fixed concrete sign and several flag poles advertising its business which were improperly placed in the right- of-way on State Road 37 in Polk County, Florida. State Road 37 is a roadway maintained by Petitioner. Only the fixed concrete sign is at issue herein. The concrete sign bears the legend "Claussen's Fine Furniture". The sign measures more than thirty feet long, is made of cement and steel and is anchored in the ground to withstand wind shear. It is situated perpendicular to State Road 37. The sign was erected in April of 1991. Respondent admits that most of the sign is situated within the right- of-way of State Road 37. The sign is located approximately 56 feet from the edge of State Road 37. The inside edge of the sign is approximately 56.2 feet from the edge of the roadway. The right-of-way at that location extends approximately 88 feet from the edge of the roadway. As such, the sign is located upon the right-of-way of State Road 37. Additionally, Respondent admits that Petitioner has not given permission for the sign to occupy a portion of the right-of-way. Respondent did not speak to representatives of Petitioner prior to erection of the sign in question. Likewise, Respondent did not check the official property records of Polk County or commission a survey to determine the right-of-way prior to erecting the sign. Petitioner's agents did not see the sign when it was being erected in 1991. Prior to erecting the sign, Respondent obtained a permit from Polk County. In applying for the permit, Respondent spoke to Bill Padgett, Polk County's Code Inspector in Lakeland, Florida. Padgett assisted Respondent in completion of the application and considered the pertinent wind shear specifications. Padgett generally advised Respondent as to the particulars for proper erection of the sign to comply with Polk County's regulations. In this regard, Padgett went to the site where the sign would be erected. Padgett walked off the area where the sign would be situated to the center of the highway and gave Respondent an estimate of what he considered to be the right-of-way for State Road 37. Padgett is an employee of Polk County. He is not authorized to give permission to an owner, as Respondent, for the erection of a sign in a road right-of-way that is maintained by Petitioner. As such Padgett is not an agent of Petitioner and representations and authorizations by Padgett are not binding upon Petitioner. Respondent immediately removed the portable sign and the flag poles which were included in the three notices of violation in an effort to obtain some leniency from Petitioner such that the concrete sign at issue can remain situated in the right-of-way.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner issue a final order directing that the sign in the right-of-way on State Road 37 adjacent to Respondent's property be removed at Respondent's expense within thirty (30) days of its final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 17th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX IN CASE NO. 93-7182T Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 3, adopted as modified, paragraph 9, recommended order. Paragraph 3, adopted as modified, paragraph 9, recommended order. Paragraph 6, adopted as modified, paragraph 4, recommended order. Rulings (Comments) on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Respondent's proposed findings are included in two unnumbered paragraphs which were considered. The proposed findings are, in large part, adopted in the recommended order. However, the proposed finding relative to the position that Petitioner's agent, Dunsford, saw the sign being constructed and did nothing for more than two (2) years is specifically rejected, paragraph 4, Recommended order. Additionally, Respondent's proposed finding that agent Casey saw another sign which allegedly was a violation was rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 562 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Duffy, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Glen T. Shelby, Esquire Post Office Box 3225 Lakeland, Florida 33802
