Findings Of Fact On July 20, 1987, a DOT sign inspector observed a sign owned by Respondent alongside U.S. 19, 500 feet south of S.R. 590 which appeared to be on the DOT right-of-way of U.S. 19. Measurements of the distance of the sign from the pavement of U.S. 19 were taken. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 at this location extends 100 feet east and west of the centerline of U.S. 19 and 50 feet from the west side of the pavement. The sign was located 32 feet from the edge of the pavement on the west side of U.S. 19 some 18 feet inside the right-of-way line. The location of the DOT right-of-way is not readily determinable by a businessman desiring to erect a sign in front of his establishment. Generally, the power line poles are placed along the right-of-way line; however, this is not always an accurate method of locating the limit of the right-of-way. Here there were two lines of power line poles, and the sign was located between the pavement and the line of poles furthermost west of U.S. 19.
Findings Of Fact The sign in issue is owned by the Petitioner, is in existence and is located as shown on Exhibits 1 and 2 along SR 580, 100 feet north of Nebraska Avenue. The sign is located within the city limits of Tampa and is outside the DOT right of way. There is only one face on this sign which faces southwest and can be seen by eastbound traffic on Busch Boulevard (SR 580). SR 580 is a noncontrolled highway and the spacing requirements are not applicable to signs along Busch Boulevard which are otherwise not controlled. Nebraska Avenue (U.S. 41) is a federal-aide primary highway. A sign was originally erected in the same location as the existing sign in 1979 and remained until 1987 when the property on which the sign was erected changed hands. The new owners requested the sign be dismantled and re-erected on property being developed. This was done and the sign was re-erected in 1988 on its original location and of the same size as the original sign. The original sign was exempt from the spacing requirements by virtue of its grandfather status as a nonconforming sign. The sign can readily be seen by motorists traveling north on U.S. 41 (Exhibits 8-10). When the sign was rebuilt it lost its grandfather status and a new sign permit is required. Petitioner presented the only witness who testified that the angle of the sign is intended to give maximum visibility on Busch Boulevard and that the exposure time to a motorist is substantially longer on Busch Boulevard than on Nebraska Avenue. However, the exhibits submitted into evidence show the sign to be at an approximate 45 degree angle to both Busch Boulevard and Nebraska Avenue, that the sign is seen to the left side of a vehicle traveling east on Busch Boulevard and to the right side of a vehicle traveling north on Nebraska Avenue, and that there are more obstructions to the sign's visibility from Busch Boulevard than from Nebraska Avenue. This latter factor would indicate the sign's exposure time from Nebraska Avenue is at least equal to the sign's exposure time from a vehicle traveling along Busch Boulevard.
Findings Of Fact On July 24, 1987, a DOT sign inspector observed Respondent's sign opposite Respondent's place of business and apparently on the DOT right-of-way of U.S. 19. Measurements were taken by the inspector to locate the sign with respect to 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. The right-of- way extends fifty feet west of the western edge of the southbound lane of U.S. 19, thus locating the sign some 12 feet inside the right-of-way boundary. Respondent had been advised by a DOT sign inspector where this portable sign could be legally located and the sign was placed in that location out of the DOT right-of-way. On the day the sign was tagged for being on the right-of- way, the man mowing the grass around Wendy's restaurant adjacent to Respondent's restaurant moved the sign to facilitate the mowing. Respondent's owner had previously told the mower to be sure to return the sign to its authorized location if moved to facilitate mowing but, on this occasion, the sign was not immediately relocated to its authorized location.
Findings Of Fact On September 23, 1979, the Department issued to the Respondent, Chipley Motel, permit number 9028-6 authorizing an outdoor advertising sign on the south side of I-10, .8 mile west of SR 77 in Washington County, Florida. This permit was issued pursuant to an application that had been filed by a representative of the Respondent which stated that the site where the sign would be erected was zoned commercial or industrial. The Respondent's representative filed this application containing the statement that the proposed site was zoned commercial or industrial without first checking with county officials to determine the zoning status of the site. Upon receipt of the Respondent's application, Department personnel at the Chipley District Office made inquiry of county officials and were informed that the site applied for by the Respondent was zoned commercial. Thereafter, the Department's district office personnel advised the Respondent that they had ascertained the subject site to be commercially zoned, and permit number 9028-6 was issued. Both the Respondent's representative and the Department's district office personnel believed the proposed sign site was zoned commercial. However, the site applied for by the Respondent, and where permit number 9028-6 authorized a sign to be erected, was not zoned commercial or industrial either when the application was submitted or when the permit was issued. Pursuant to the issuance of permit number 9028-6, the Respondent erected an outdoor advertising sign at the permitted location. This sign was taken down sometime between September of 1979 and July of 1985. Permit number 9028-6 which had been issued for this sign on I-10, .8 mile west of SR 77 was affixed to another sign located 250-300 feet from the permitted site. Sometime after July 31, 1985, a different sign was erected at the location on I-10, .8 mile west of SR 77, and permit number 9028-6 was affixed to this sign. Therefore, permit number 9028-6 had been used on two signs at two different locations before it was reapplied to the sign that now stands on the permitted site. The sign that is up now is not the sign for which permit number 9028-6 was issued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that permit number 9028-6 held by Chipley Motel, for a sign on the south side of I-10, .8 mile west of SR 77 in Washington County, Florida, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1986 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 13th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 James J. Richardson, Esquire P. O. Box 12669 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2669 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about January 11, a DOT sign inspector observed two signs owned by Respondent on what appeared to be the right-of-way of U.S. 19 in the vicinity of C.R. 576 in Pinellas County. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 at this location extends 100 feet east and west of the centerline of U.S. 19 and 50 feet east and west of the edge she paved surface of U.S. 19. U.S. 19 is a Federal Aid Primary Highway and part of the State Highway System Measurements were taken on the distance from the edge of the paved surface of U.S. 19 to the signs. The sign located 500 feet south of C.R. 576 was 35 feet from the edge of the pavement, and the sign 0.1 mile south of C.R. 576 was 38 feet from the edge of the pavement. On or about January 27, 1988, the DOT sign inspector observed a sign 0.75 mile south of C.R. 592 owned by Respondent on what appeared to be the right-of-way of U.S. 19 in Pinellas County. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 in this location is the same as in Finding No. 2 above. Measurements taken of this sign from the edge of the pavement showed the sign to be 38 feet from the edge of the paved surface of U.S. 19, placing the sign some 12 feet inside the right-of-way boundary. Respondent submitted photographs of other signs which appeared to be on the right-of-way of U.S. 19 in the vicinity of Respondent's signs which were not cited for being on the right-of-way. However, during the past year some 2,000 violations have been issued citing signs, principally along U.S. 19, with being located on the right-of-way.
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 June 18, 1986, Department of Transportation sign inspector observed a sign advertising Michael's Foods along U.S. 19 35 feet east of the edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. The easterly boundary of the right-of-way of U.S. 19 at this location is 57 feet east of the edge of the pavement. U.S. 19 is a federal-aid primary highway.
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.
Findings Of Fact On July 15, 1987, the DOT sign inspector observed a sign owned by Respondent in front of McDonald's restaurant on what appeared to be the right- of-way along the western side of U.S. 19, 800 feet south of Lime, in Pinellas County. The DOT right-of-way along U.S. 19 at this location extends 100 feet eastward of the centerline of U.S. 19. The right-of-way line on the western side of U.S. 19 at this location is 55 feet from the westernmost edge of the southbound lanes. Measurements taken from the pavement edge to the sign located the sign 48 feet from the edge of the pavement, which is 7 feet inside the right of way line. When a permit for this sign was obtained by Respondent from the City of Tarpon Springs Planning Department, a sketch accompanying the application (Exhibit 5) located the sign 30 feet from the edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. When cited for being on the right of way, this sign was located further from the pavement of U.S. 19 than landscaping shrubs planted and tended by McDonald's in front of the restaurant. For these reasons, Respondent assumed the sign was legally positioned. The location of the DOT right of way is not readily determinable by a businessman desiring to erect a sign in front of his business. Generally, the power line poles are placed along the right-of-way line; however, this is not always an accurate method of location of the limit of the right-of-way. This is specifically true where additional right-of-way has been acquired by DOT along U.S. 19 and other highways. Upon being notified of the citation of this sign for being located on the right-of-way, Herb Selak, owner of Don's Porta Signs, rode up and down U.S. 19 and observed numerous signs located inside the power pole lines which had not been cited. Photographs of those signs were admitted into evidence as Exhibit A written list of those signs provided by Selak for DOT was admitted as Exhibit 10. Selak also observed a DOT vehicle parked in a restaurant parking, and he pulled in and observed one sign inspector emerge from the restaurant with another person and point out the portable sign in front of the restaurant. A photo of this sign showing it to be inside the power pole line was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 9. This sign was not cited by the inspector. Selak made an appointment and proceeded to Bartow to discuss the citing of his signs for violating the right-of-way. He gave a copy of Exhibit 10 to the chief of the outdoor advertising section for DOT District I. Most of these signs were subsequently cited by the DOT inspector for being on the right- of- way. Where signs are located on newly acquired right-of-way, the department takes the position that the sign owner be notified that the sign is in the right-of-way, and he is entitled to a reasonable time in which to remove the sign therefrom.
The Issue The issue for consideration herein is whether the Respondent's business sign, located north of Pembroke Drive on U.S. Highway 41 in Port Charlotte, Florida, violates Section 479.11(6), Florida Statutes, which prohibits the display of signs using the words "stop" or "danger" adjacent to a specified highway.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation is the state agency responsible for controlling the placement of advertising signs along the rights of way of the highway system in Florida. On March 22, 1990, John v. Hanrahan, an outdoor advertising inspector for the Department in southwest central Florida was driving south on U.S. Highway 41 in Charlotte County, Florida, when he observed the Respondent's sign, located approximately 100 feet north of Pembroke Drive on the northbound side of the highway. The faces of the sign, which was perpendicular to the highway, were readable from both the north and south. The sign is located approximately 15 feet east of the eastern edge of the highway. It is not, however, located on the highway right of way. It is adjacent to but outside the northwest corner of the Respondent's parking lot. The sign is an internally lighted, plastic, double-sided sign on posts. The distance from the ground to the bottom of the sign is at least 15 feet, (the installer says 20 feet), and from the ground to the top of the sign is 32 feet. On both faces of the sign is a replication of an octagonal "stop sign," a traffic control sign, in red with white letters spelling "STOP," and a white border with a black outline around the border. The whole sign is 8 to 10 feet wide and though the installer says the replication is four feet from top to bottom and from side to side, including the border, examination of the photograph of the sign, introduced by the Petitioner, reflects it is bigger than that. The replication is almost as wide as the sign itself which can be seen from 400 feet away to the north and 100 feet away to the south. Mr. D'Arcy, the individual who installed the sign, claims that due to the height of the sign and its distance up in the air, it does not reasonably appear as a traffic control sign. Before installing the sign, he secured a permit, without objection, from Charlotte County after an application, including the design of the plan, was submitted to the permitting office. He did not, however, submit the installation plan to the state. Section 479.11(6), Florida Statutes, prohibits the use or maintenance of a sign which uses the words "stop" or "danger", or which is a copy or imitation of an official traffic control sign and which is adjacent to a highway. Mr. Hanrahan, who has worked as an inspector for several years, has cited several other establishments which use the word "stop" in their outdoor signs because they were in violation of the statute. His normal procedure is to talk with the sign owner in an attempt to resolve the problem before issuing a citation. He did that in this case as well, but the owner failed to make the necessary change voluntarily, and he, therefore, issued the citation. The owner of the sign claims he had an almost identical sign outside his former place of business in the area, (a 4 foot stop sign with the word "carpet" on top) prior to 1984 without objection. The former Sheriff of Charlotte County during the period indicated he had received no complaints about that sign during his tenure in office. As a former traffic enforcement officer, considering the instant sign and the circumstances of its placement, he does not believe it could reasonably be mistaken for an official stop sign. The evidence of record indicates to the contrary, however, and as situated, it would appear that the sign constitutes a traffic safety hazard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case upholding the validity of the Violation Notice in issue here, and requiring the Respondent, Carpet Stop, Inc., to remove the offending portion of the sign from its current location. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of August, 1990, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 H. Vernon Davids, Esquire 165 West Green STreet Englewood, Florida 34223 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
