The Issue The issues in this case are whether a sign owned by the Respondent is in violation of Section 479.07(1) and 479.11(1), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what remedial action should be taken by the Department of Transportation.
Findings Of Fact Heinl's Nursery, a division of American Nursery Products, Inc., is the owner of a sign located in Dade County, Florida, on the west side of Krome Avenue (State Road 997) about 36 feet north of its intersection with S.W. 126th Street. The subject sign is located approximately 23 feet from the right-of- way of Krome Avenue. The subject sign has been at that location for a number of years. The face of the sign is made of wood and measures approximately 4 feet by 8 feet. The sign is mounted on metal poles. The message on the sign consists of the owner's name, a logo or graphic decoration, and an arrow pointing towards the right. The Department of Transportation has not issued a permit for the sign. The area in which the sign is located is not zoned commercial or industrial and is not an unzoned commercial or industrial area. The sign is not located on the business premises of the sign owner. Krome Avenue (State Road 997) is part of the federal-aid primary highway system. By notice dated March 21, 1989, the owner of the sign was advised that the sign was in violation of the applicable statutes and must be removed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order providing for the immediate removal of the subject sign. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of July 1989. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 31st day of July 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mr. Mike S. Waters 15000 S.W. 192nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33187 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact The attorney for the Respondent thereafter filed a statement in part as follows: "It is my understanding that the issues to be presented for decision are whether the sign in question violates the set- back and permit requirements under state and federal law. After a thorough review of the factual background, it appears that the respondent has no alternative but to, and does hereby admit the allegations, end consent that the sign was erected in vio- lation of the setback and permit require- ments It is therefore obvious that: the sign should be removed and I would request that he be allowed a period of thirty days from the date of this letter to remove the sign so as to avoid the necessity of further action on the part of the Florida Depart- ment of Transportation." The above statement was contained in a letter from Richard Wayne Grant, attorney for Sefton Miller, Respondent, and is considered dispositive of the issue.
Recommendation Remove subject sign after November 20, 1977, unless said sign has previously been removed by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Richard Wayne Grant, Esquire Post Office Box 209 Marianna, Florida 32446
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 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 or about July 31, 1987, a DOT sign inspector observed a sign opposite Respondent's place of business advertising Respondent's business, which appeared to be on the DOT right-of-way of U.S. 19 in Hernando County. Measurements to place the sign in relation to U.S. 19 were taken. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 at this location, as determined by a DOT right-of-way marker 1000 feet south of Respondent's sign and the DOT right-of- way map, shows the right- of-way to extend 55 feet west of the edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. The sign at issue was located 46 feet from the edge of the pavement placing the sign 9 feet inside the DOT right-of-way line.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Transportation take no action against the subject sign. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank H. King, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James P. Appleman, Esquire 206 Market Street Post Office Box 385 Marianna, Florida 32446
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
Findings Of Fact On July 20, 1987, a DOT sign inspector observed a sign owned by Respondent along U.S. 19 near the intersection of Evans Road in Pinellas County which appeared to be on the DOT right-of-way along U.S. 19. The right-of-way along U.S. 19 at this location extends 100 feet east and west of the centerline of U.S. 19 and 50 feet from the edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. The measured distance from the edge of pavement to the sign was 39 feet, thus placing the sign 11 feet inside the right of way. Generally the line of power poles along U.S. 19 marks the DOT right-of- way; however, this is not necessarily true, particularly when additional right- of-way is acquired. One photograph of the sign (Exhibit 2), taken a short distance from the sign by the DOT sign inspector, would indicate part of the sign is inside the line of power poles. Another photograh (Exhibit 4), taken by Respondent from a greater distance from the signs, would indicate the sign is outside the line of power poles. The check list (Exhibit 3), prepared by the DOT sign inspector at the time the sign was cited, does not reveal the location of the sign with respect to the right-of-way, yet the inspector testified to the measurements in finding no. 2 above.
