Findings Of Fact On or about January 8, 1988, a DOT sign inspector observed two of Respondent's signs along U.S. 19, 50 feet north of C.R. 95 and 300 feet north of C.R. 95 which appeared to be on the right-of-way of U.S. 19. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 at this location is 100 feet east and west of the centerline of U.S. 19 and 50 feet east and west of the edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. Respondent's two signs were 34 feet and 38 feet, respectively, from the edge of the paved surface of U.S. 19. On or about January 13, 1988, a DOT sign inspector observed a sign owned by Respondent along U.S. 19, 50 feet north of Lake Street which appeared to be on the right-of-way of U.S. 19. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 at this location extends 55 feet from the easterly edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. A measurement taken from the edge of the pavement to Respondent's sign showed the sign to be 46 feet from the edge of the pavement. U.S. 19 is a Federal Aid Primary Highway. Respondent presented testimony that when its signs were erected they were located no closer to U.S. 19 than the power pole line which is generally located in the DOT right-of- way line.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owned property including structures used for his dwelling and for his business which was located within the right-of-way of an interstate highway being constructed by the Respondent, Department of Transportation. The Petitioner and the Department negotiated with respect to the amount of compensation that Petitioner was entitled to receive. The Department located a residential dwelling which it contended was comparable to Petitioner's. Petitioner accepted the dwelling located by the Department as comparable for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation that Petitioner was entitled to receive. Petitioner elected, however, to construct a new dwelling on other property that he owned. Petitioner was compensated as if he had purchased the comparable dwelling and was compensated an additional $829 for "incidental expenses" beyond the replacement value as established by the comparable dwelling. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to be compensated for the cost of a "origination fee" which resulted from Petitioner's having to arrange financing. Although improperly labeled, it appears that Petitioner did receive adequate compensation for the loan origination fee. Petitioner received a check from the Department for a "replacement housing payment" which included the origination fee which Petitioner contends he was entitled to receive. While the replacement housing payment was not broken up so as to reflect these fees, it was calculated to include them. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to receive incidental expenses beyond those that he has already received in the amount of $2,068.23. Petitioner has received a payment for incidental expenses in the amount of $829, which includes expenses for a survey, sketch and description, loan application fee, title insurance, attorney's fees, and recording fees. Petitioner actually incurred incidental expenses beyond those for which he was compensated. These additional fees resulted, however, from the fact that Petitioner elected to construct a new residence rather than to accept the comparable residence located by the Department. Because Petitioner was constructing a new residence, it was necessary for him to incur some expenses which would not have been incurred had he accepted the comparable dwelling located by the Department. These expenses included costs of obtaining a rezoning of his property, costs of various construction permits, the cost of obtaining a construction loan, and the cost of a builder's risk insurance policy. While the Petitioner actually incurred these costs, they were costs that he would not have incurred if he had elected to accept the comparable dwelling located by the Department. Petitioner did accept the comparable dwelling for the purpose of setting the amount of benefits that he was entitled to receive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation denying the application of the Petitioner, John D. Lawrence, for additional relocation assistance benefits. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 2nd day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John D. Lawrence c/o Manatee Tropical Foliage Post Office Box 206 Parrish, Florida 33564 Charles G. Gardner Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Paul N. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Case No. 87-1735T: Whether respondent's sign located .14 miles east of Old San Ann Road on State Road 52 violates the spacing rule and was erected without a required permit. Case No. 87-1736T: Whether respondent's sign located .07 miles west of Ann Road, on State Road 52 was erected without the required permit.
Findings Of Fact Case No. 87-1735T: Respondent owns an outdoor advertising sign adjacent to State Road 52 and .14 miles east of Old San Ann Road. The sign advertises Dick Jarrett Ford, Dade City. The sign site is located within the corporate limits of Dade City, Florida. At the site of the sign, State Road 52 is a federal-aid primary highway. The sign is located approximately 100 feet from the edge of the highway pavement, and the edge of the highway pavement is 12 feet from the center line of the road. There is a 50-foot right-of-way on the eastbound side of the road, which places the sign approximately 62 feet from the right-of-way. The sign is visible to traffic on State Road 52. When the sign was observed by Linda K. Brown, an Outdoor Advertising Inspector for the Department of Transportation, the sign had no permit tag attached to it. Further, the sign was located 460 feet from a permitted sign on the same side of the highway. A review of Department of Transportation records revealed that no permit had been issued for the sign in question. The inspection and review by Ms. Brown resulted in the issuance of the Notice of Violation dated March 12, 1987. Case No. 87-1736T: Respondent owns a sign located on the eastbound side of State Road 52, .07 miles west of Ann Road, in Pasco County, Florida. At that location, State Road 52 is a federal-aid primary highway. The sign is located approximately 50 feet from the edge of the road pavement, which is 12 feet from the center line of the road. There is 50-foot right-of-way on the eastbound side of the road. Thus, the sign is approximately 12 feet from the road right-of-way. The sign is visible to traffic on State Road 52. The sign is owned by Joe Bryant, the respondent, and is located on property where Mr. Bryant has his residence. The sign is located approximately 50 feet from his front door. When Ms. Brown initially observed the sign, on March 11, 1987, the sign contained an advertisement for General Home Development and the model center located on the 98 Bypass. The model center is approximately 2 miles from Mr. Bryant's property. Mr. Bryant does not work as a sales representative for General Home Development and General Home Development has no offices or sales representatives on his property. Respondent's intent is to receive revenue for the subject sign. On March 11, 1987, the subject sign had no permit tag attached to it, and a subsequent review of the records of the Department of Transportation showed that no permit had been issued for the sign. Based on the inspection and review by Ms. Brown, the Notice of Violation was issued. Subsequently, the face of the sign was removed by Mr. Bryant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the signs involved in Case No. 87-1735T and 87-1736T were erected without the permits required by statute, directing that respondent remove both signs, including the structures, within thirty (30) days from the day of the Final Order, and providing that should respondent fail to comply with the order, the petitioner shall remove the signs and charge the respondent for the cost of removal. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1735T & 87-1736T Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in paragraph 1 Accepted in paragraphs 1 & 2 Accepted in paragraph 3 Accepted in paragraphs 4 & 5 COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 3299-0458 Joe Bryant Post Office Box 805 Dade City, Florida 33525 Kaye Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and Respondent shall abide by the terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into in this matter. Filed September 11, 2014 2:09 PM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this \\ day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon Cobur Julie Baker, Chief Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 County, Florida. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this } { day of September, 2014. NOTICE OF APPEALRIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/jdc Copies furnished: Richard A. Filson, Esquire Filson and Penge, P.A. 2727 South Tamiami Trail Sarasota, Florida 34239 filsonlawfirm@gmail.com Damaris E. Reynolds, Esquire Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A430, MS61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 damarisreynolds@flhsmv.gov William F. Quattlebaum Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 6 fees. eat
Findings Of Fact The sign here in issue was erected in 1992 and remained in the same location until December 1986. The sign is located along the west side of U.S. 19 in Pasco County, Florida, 41 feet from the western edge of the pavement. The DOT right-of-way at this location is 57 feet. U.S. 19 is part of the state highway system. Respondent stipulated that the sign was located in the DOT right-of-way and was in violation. Upon receipt of the violation notice, the association relocated the sign off of the DOT right-of-way within ten days of the notice of violation (December 11, 1986).
Findings Of Fact Six signs were described in a violation notice to Respondent Dandy Signs from Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation dated July 7, 1977. The notice stated the signs were alleged to be in violation of Chapter 479 and rules 14-10.04; rule 14-10.03. By stipulation of the parties the charges on the signs listed were dropped except for the following two signs: a sign located one mile west of U.S. 1, State Road 44, Mile Post 28.25 with copy "Bob's Sandpiper Restaurant" and a sign located at Junction 17-92 Deland, U.S. Highway 17 (Section 35 Mile Post .02) with copy "Buddy Sheats". The foregoing signs have no permit and evidence was presented to show that each sign is nearer to a permitted sign than 500 feet. The Respondent admits that neither sign has been permitted and that both signs violate the spacing requirements. Respondent was given time to submit evidence that the signs had at one time been permitted, but no evidence was submitted to this hearing officer although the hearing was held in excess of three months before this order is being entered.
Recommendation Remove the subject signs and invoke penalty under Section 479.18, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1978. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dan Richardson, Owner Dandy Signs 324 Flagler Street New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32069
Findings Of Fact On July 31, 1987, a sign owned by Hodessa Corporation for whom Gia Associates is the agent was located on the right-of-way of U.S. 19 in Pasco County, .3 mile north of Floramar. When erected by the sign company some months earlier the sign was located in a legal location and not on the right-of-way of U.S. 19. Considerable construction work was being done on the property owned by Hodessa. Upon completion of the parking lot the sign was moved by the construction workers onto the right-of-way of U.S. 19. As soon as this error was discovered by Respondent the sign was relocated to its proper position.
The Issue Whether the Respondent by erecting the two subject signs violated the state and federal regulation and laws by erecting one sign on the right of way of U.S. 319, a Federal Aid Primary Road, and erecting one sign within five (5) feet of said highway. Whether subject signs should be removed for lack of permits.
Findings Of Fact Claimant contended and Respondent admitted that the two subject signs were in violation of set-back requirements of Chapter 479 and the Federal Beautification Act as charged.
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.
