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.
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
Findings Of Fact By notice of alleged violation dated January 19, 1979, the Department charged that the Respondent, Chevron, U.S.A., installed a sign on 1-4, 23.86 miles east of U.S. 301, without a permit in violation of Rule 14-10.04, Florida Administrative Code. The notice also alleged that the sign was too close to an off ramp of 1-4, in violation of Title 23, Section 13, U.S. Code Para. 2(B). The parties stipulated that the sign is located along 1-4, a part of the Federal Interstate Highway Systems which was open to vehicular traffic in 1959-1960 and that the sign is located in the unincorporated area of Polk County. On or about October 22, 1969, the Respondent contracted with Pickett and Associates, of Tampa1 Florida, a general contractor, to construct a complete operating service station at 1-4 and SR 35-A. Included in the contract price was the cost of constructing the sign in question. An engineer for Chevron, J. L. Edgar, requested on June 4, 1969, that Pickett and Associates proceed to obtain all permits prior to construction. Due to no direct fault of the Respondent, the necessary permits to install the sign were never obtained from the Department. This fact was discovered when a sign inspector noticed the sign to be in poor condition and in need of repair. The contractor who erected the sign was contacted regarding the permits but all records relating to this particular job have been discarded. Chevron was unaware that the sign was never permitted until the notice was issued by the Department. The sign is located within five hundred (500) feet of the exit ramp off 1-4 to Kathleen Road (SR 35-A) , as measured from the spot where the road widens to the exit. No evidence was submitted to show that the sign was on the same property of the station or within one hundred (100) feet thereof.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's sign be found in violation of Rule 14- 10.06(1)(b)(2)(b) , Florida Administrative Code and Section 479.07, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of August, 1980. in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. A. Scott Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. 3908 10th Avenue Tampa, Florida 33605 Charles Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner issued a violation notice on the 29th day of June, 1977, alleging that a sign owned by Respondent located at the northwest corner of Seminole and Pratt-Whitney Road on State Road 80, Palm Beach County, Florida, violated permit, zoning and spacing laws. No application was made for the erection of this sign and none secured from the Florida Department of Transportation. The sign is approximately 12-15 feet west of an existing sign and is approximately 60 feet from the edge of the right of way of the Federal Aid Primary Road 80. The area in which the sign was erected is zoned agricultural. Petitioner contends that the sign violates the set back and spacing requirements of Section 479 and that it was erected in an agricultural zoned area without a permit. Respondent contends that the area is agricultural and is in a remote part of Palm Beach County and that he should be allowed a variance inasmuch as the sign is necessary for the advertising of his business in the rural section of the county.
Recommendation Remove subject sign for failure to obtain a permit and for violation of zoning and spacing laws. There are no provisions for a variance under the facts of this case. DONE and ENTERED this 19th of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Allan Black, President Allan Black Construction Corporation Box 5-73 - Wellington West Palm Beach, Florida 33411
The Issue Whether at least one of three signs located in the area of subject sign is in violation of state and federal law. Which signs, if any, are in violation. Whether the subject sign is in violation of the spacing regulation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact There are three signs standing on a strip of land adjoining U.S. 19, a Federal Aid Primary Road approximately six (6) miles North of S.R. 60. The spacing requirement is that there must be at least 500 feet between signs. Copy on the sign advertising "Parkview Terrace by U.S. Home" is a two-faced sign with one side blank and is located between two signs which have a permit to advertise although the spacing between the three signs standing is not the required 500 feet. The cited sign presently advertising "Parkview Terrace by U.S. Home" was formerly in a location owned by Artcraft which company did not apply for a permit and which Artcraft informed Complainant was going to be removed. The Complainant did not prosecute for permit violation inasmuch as the inspector was told the sign would be removed and when removed the other to signs involved herein would be eligible for permits. The site was abandoned but Respondent erected another sign in approximately the same location without a permit.
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
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Maxmedia Outdoor Advertising, Inc., owns and maintains a V- shaped sign located on State Road 551 (Goldenrod Road) in Orange County, Florida, north of State Road 50. State outdoor advertising sign permits were obtained for both sides of the "V" in May 1986. The applications for permit stated that the sign was 15 feet from the right-of- way. Sometime prior to June 1, 1989, Department of Transportation (DOT) Outdoor Advertising Inspector, Michael Dollery, inspected the sign in question. He found that no state permits were displayed and that the sign encroached on the state right-of-way. A follow-up inspection was conducted on September 15, 1989, and the same findings were made. In determining that the sign encroached on the right-of-way, the inspector utilized a DOT right-of-way survey map (Petitioner's Exhibit #4), prepared in 1987, approved on 5/12/88, and updated most recently on 5/8/89. The inspector also located a right-of-way survey marker in the field and photographed the sign in relation to the marker. Both the survey and photograph plainly indicate that approximately five feet of both sides of the "V" extend into the right-of-way. Since the sign has two sides and two permits, separate violation notices were issued. The two violation notices are the subject of Division of Administrative Hearings cases #89-3819T and #89-3820T. Respondent does not contest the DOT survey and did not object to its admissibility. He did not produce his own survey nor any basis for his contention that the sign was proper at the time of erection. In DOAH Case #89-3821T, the sign at issue is located within the incorporated limits of the City of Lake Mary in Seminole County, Florida, at an interchange of 1-4 and Lake Mary Boulevard. The sign is owned and maintained by Respondent, Maxmedia. It is "V" shaped, with the apex of the "V" pointing at Lake Mary Boulevard. It is within 660 feet of the interstate (I-4) and is approximately 850 feet from a 2-faced permitted billboard located across Lake Mary Boulevard. The sign is 20 feet high. DOT has no record of a permit for this sign, nor was one displayed at the time of inspection. DOT's District Outdoor Administrator claims that the sign is visible from the main travel-way of 1-4. DOT issued its notice of violation only for the west face of the sign, since that is the side which faces the interstate. As depicted on a DOT right-of-way survey (Petitioner's Exhibit #8), the offending face of the sign runs lengthwise, parallel to 1-4. Respondent claims that the sign was purposefully built only 20 feet high, instead of the more common 50 feet, so that it would not be visible from 1-4. The sign was placed to be read from Lake Mary Boulevard. Respondent submitted a series of photographs taken from 1-4 and from Lake Mary Boulevard, including the portion of Lake Mary Boulevard overpass over 1-4. The sign is distinctly lower than the other signs which are visible from 1-4. The sign is visible from Lake Mary Boulevard but is obscured by the tree line when viewed from 1-4. Even assuming that the subject sign structure could be viewed from 1-4, a passer-by on 1-4 would have to quickly turn and crane his neck to read the sign, given its parallel orientation. Respondent claims that the placement of the sign was based on a consultation, on-site, with DOT's former District Supervisor, Oscar Irwin, who concurred that the sign would not be an "Interstate 4 reader." The sign was permitted by the City of Lake Mary on October 17, 1984. According to the federal highway system map of Seminole County (Petitioner's Exhibit #6) Lake Mary Boulevard is not part of the federal-aid primary highway system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered requiring that the sign in Cases #89-3819T and #89-3820T be removed, and dismissing the notice of violations in Case #89- 3821T. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 27th day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Attorney Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mac Davidson Maxmedia Outdoor Advertising Post Office Box 847 Winter Park, Florida 32790 Ben G. Watts, P.E., Interim Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Captain Doug's Restaurant is located on Key Largo, Florida, at approximately Mile Marker 99.5. The restaurant does business as a corporation. Douglas W. Newell is the President of the corporation, and the manager of Captain Doug's Restaurant. The restaurant is located on the ocean side of the northbound lane of U.S. Highway 1. The highway is a four-lane divided highway at that location. The median is quite broad. The median serves as a location for numerous busineses and structures, and only a portion of it serves as the highway right-of-way. Mr. Newell maintains a sign advertising Captain Doug's Restaurant just east of the southbound lane of the highway in the median. The sign, which, totals approximately twenty feet in height, has the neon letters "restaurant" on a top section. A bottom section specifies menu items available at the restaurant, and is topped by a flashing arrow which points the direction to the restaurant. The sign is essential to the restaurant's business because otherwise the restaurant would not be visible from the southbound lane of the highway. The flashing arrow on the sign is an integral part of the design of the sign. It does not imply the need or requirement of stopping, or the existence of danger, but it is brighter than other parts of the sign and is likely to be distracting to motorists. The arrow would have the same advertising effects if the lights on it were on, but not flashing, and would not, with a non-flashing configuration, be as distracting to motorists. There are numerous signs located along Highway 1 in the Keys that have flashing parts, but none were observed with the flashing arrow pattern of this sign. The Department of Transportation owns a right-of- way along the southbound lane of U.S. Highway 1 which extends seventy feet from the center line toward the northbound lane. The sign advertising Captain Doug's Restaurant lies totally within this right-of-way. The front of the sign is 46.2 feet from the center and the back post is 57.1 feet from the center.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 28, 1987, a DOT sign inspector observed a portable sign owned by and advertising Furniture World apparently on the right-of-way of U. S. 19 in front of the Furniture World business in Pinellas County. At this location, the right-of-way of U. S. 19 extends 100 feet from the centerline and 50 feet from the edge of the pavement of U. S. 19. Measurements taken from the edge of the pavement of U. S. 19 to the sign showed the sign to be 42 feet from the edge of the pavement. Prior to October 28, 1987, the owners of Furniture World removed the sign from its normal location in front of the business to a location where it was not visible from U. S. 19. Furniture World had stopped its nightly openings, and the face of the sign advertised the store as "open tonight." Sometime during the evening hours of October 27, 1987, the sign had been placed on the U. S. 19 right-of-way by a person or persons unknown to the owners of Furniture World. The sign was observed by the owners when the store opened on October 28, and they were awaiting the arrival of the son of one of the owners to remove the sign when the sign was cited by Petitioner.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner Lamar Advertising Company-Lakeland (Lamar) rebuilt a billboard that it owns on the Florida Turnpike in violation of the law that limits the rebuilding of nonconforming signs.
Findings Of Fact Lamar is the owner of a billboard which displays outdoor advertising and is located on the Florida Turnpike near State Road 91 in Martin County. It is a "back-to-back" billboard with both north-facing and south-facing advertising. The advertising is permitted by DOT Outdoor Advertising Sign Permits 13882 and 13883, and the billboard bears tag numbers CC087 and CC088. The billboard was first built in 1972 and was acquired by Lamar in 1998. The billboard is 549 feet from the nearest sign to the south and 570 feet from the nearest sign to the north. When the sign was built, there were no minimum spacing requirements applicable to signs on the Florida Turnpike, which was classified by DOT as a secondary roadway. Before 1984, the minimum spacing requirement for "federal-aid primary highways" (primary roadways) was 500 feet. In 1984, Subsection 479.07(9), Florida Statutes, was amended to require a minimum spacing between signs on primary roadways of 1,000 feet. Subsection 479.07(9), Florida Statutes (1984), included a provision that not only grandfathered existing signs on primary roadways that were less than 1,000 feet from other signs, but went further to state that such signs, if conforming before the spacing requirement was changed, would not be construed thereafter as nonconforming. The significance of this provision is that signs on primary roadways that were more than 500 feet, but less than 1,000 feet from other signs in 1984, are not subject to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2), which limits the rebuilding of damaged nonconforming signs. In November 1995, the Florida Turnpike was added to the National Highway System. Thereafter, DOT treated the Florida Turnpike as a primary roadway. The reclassification of the Florida Turnpike from a secondary roadway to a primary roadway was not accomplished through a statute or DOT rule. DOT interprets the grandfathering provision in Subsection 479.07(9), Florida Statutes, to apply only to signs that were on primary roadways in 1984 when the 1,000-foot spacing requirement was established. Because the Florida Turnpike was not a primary roadway in 1984, DOT contends that signs on the Florida Turnpike less than 1,000 feet from other signs are nonconforming signs and are subject to the rebuilding limitations in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2). Hurricane Wilma struck Florida in October 2005. Mark Johnson, DOT's outdoor advertising inspector for the area that includes Martin County, testified that in late October or early November 2005, he saw that Lamar's billboard had been seriously damaged. He testified that he saw "everything down" and "poles splintered." He took photographs and made notes about his inspection of the damage. Mr. Johnson said he sent the photographs and notes from his October 2005 inspection to DOT headquarters in Tallahassee. Without explanation, they were not offered into evidence at the final hearing. Mr. Johnson testified that on December 7, 2007, he saw that the billboard was rebuilt. He inspected the billboard on that date, and he believes that the six poles that support the billboard are new poles. He saw and photographed old sign materials, including at least one pole, on the ground next to the billboard. It cannot be determined from the photograph whether the pole on the ground is splintered. Lamar denies that the billboard was destroyed and then reconstructed between October and December 2005. It presented the testimony of its real estate/leasing manager, David Henry, who stated that the billboard was not destroyed by the hurricane, and none of its six support poles were replaced. Mr. Henry showed that none of the leasing or maintenance records of Lamar indicate that the billboard was rebuilt. Neither party seemed to recognize the significance to this dispute of photographs of the billboard taken in August and November 2005. Petitioner's Exhibit 3I is a September 2, 2005, letter from DOT to Lamar, informing Lamar that the billboard had been without advertising for 10 months and was about to be deemed abandoned. One of the photographs attached to the letter and admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3J was taken on August 31, 2005, two months before Mr. Johnson's first inspection. Petitioner's Exhibit 2, which is some general information about Lamar's sign permits that is accessible from DOT's internet website, includes photographs of the billboard taken on November 19, 2005, just after Mr. Johnson's first inspection. To reconcile Mr. Johnson's testimony with the November 19, 2005, photographs, it would be necessary to find that the photographs depict the billboard very soon after it was rebuilt. However, there are no discernible changes in the main structural elements of the billboard as they appear in the November 2005 photographs from how they appear in the August 2005 photographs. The November photographs do not appear to show a billboard that was just constructed. The old sign materials on the ground that appear in photographs taken by Mr. Johnson on December 7, 2005, would not have been visible to him in October 2005 because of the dense vegetation around the billboard that existed in October 2005. Lamar removed much of that vegetation before Mr. Johnson's December 2005 inspection.1/ The old sign materials could have been there long before October 2005. Lamar removed the advertising sign facings from the billboard when Hurricane Wilma was approaching to avoid damage to the sign facings and billboard and replaced the sign facings before Mr. Johnson's December 2005 inspection. Mr. Johnson appeared to be a credible witness, but he might have been confused by Lamar's temporary removal of the sign facings from the billboard and the clearing of vegetation that exposed old sign materials on the ground next to the billboard. On this record and without Mr. Johnson's October 2005 photographs that purport to show Lamar's billboard to be substantially destroyed, DOT failed to prove that more than 50 percent of the structural materials in the billboard was replaced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a final order rescinding its Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit regarding Outdoor Advertising Sign Permits 13882 and 13883. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 8th day of June, 2007.
