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.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Department of Transportation (DOT), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Federal Highway Beautification Act, as amended, which pertains to lighting, design and spacing of signs on the interstate, federal and primary highway systems. Respondent, First Coast Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (First Coast), is an outdoor advertising firm located in St. Augustine Beach, Florida, and is the owner of a sign erected on State Road A1A in Flagler County, Florida. Respondent, Motel Delores, is a motel located at 5992 Oceanside Boulevard (State Road A1A) in Flagler County and has a sign erected near its place of business. Both signs are located on the same side of the highway and are subject to DOT's regulatory jurisdiction. The underpinnings of this controversy began in 1966 when Motel Delores decided it would erect a sign with a message reading "Delores Motel & Restaurant". The actual location of the sign is 385 feet south of the intersection of Malacompra Road and State Road A1A, or 10.2 miles north of the intersection of State Roads 100 and A1A, in Flagler County, Florida. At that time, the property on which the sign was erected was owned by Malcolm Johnson. According to Jerrald D. Schatz, who is one of the motel owners, Motel Delores was given permission by Johnson for the sign to be erected on Johnson's property. In 1970, ITT Development Corporation (ITT) purchased Johnson's land. There is no indication in the record that ITT initially lodged any objections to Motel Delores continuing to have its sign located on ITT's property. The date on which DOT began regulating outdoor advertising signs is not of record. However, Motel Delores first learned of the need to obtain a sign permit in early 1977 when a DOT representative advised it that a permit was necessary. Accordingly, respondent made application with DOT for a permit on March 9, 1977, and was issued tag number 5697-02 on March 16, 1977. Thereafter, the tagged sign remained at the same location until March 1990. In 1984, ITT and DOT became embroiled in a civil action over ownership of land on and near State Road A1A where the two signs are now located. In 1986, the lawsuit was settled when DOT and ITT agreed to exchange land in the immediate area. As a result of that settlement, the land on which Motel Delores' sign was located was deeded from ITT to DOT and now constitutes right- of-way on State Road A1A. Without DOT's written permission, the placement of a sign on state right-of-way is prohibited. In March 1990, Motel Delores' sign and tag were stolen by unknown individuals. Within a few days, Schatz began erecting a new sign a few feet closer to A1A. By chance, a DOT sign inspector, William Terry, happened to be traveling on A1A and observed the new sign. After a preliminary investigation was conducted, including contact by DOT with ITT, Terry concluded that the sign was within fifteen feet of DOT right-of-way on a federal primary highway and the sign owner did not have ITT's written permission to have the sign at that location. The inspector was unaware of the fact that DOT and ITT had exchanged land some four years earlier and was under the impression that the land on which the sign was located belonged to ITT. Accordingly, on March 29, 1990, Terry posted a cease work order on the sign and recommended that a notice of violation be issued. The recommendation was accepted by the district administrator of outdoor advertising and a notice to show cause was issued on April 6, 1990. On April 23, 1990, Schatz filed a request for hearing with the DOT district office. In late February 1990 First Coast began erecting an outdoor advertising sign approximately 523 feet north of where the Motel Delores sign was located. In conjunction with this activity, on March 14, 1990, First Coast filed an application with DOT for a sign permit. However, A1A is designated as a part of the federal-aid primary highway system and state law prohibits two permitted signs from being located within 1,000 feet of one another on such a road. Because the DOT "inventory book" for permitted signs carried the tag number for the sign owned by Motel Delores, which was 523 feet south of First Coast's sign, the application was returned to First Coast on March 21, 1990, with a notation by the district administrator that it was "Dis-Approved" (sic). A short time later, Terry posted a cease work order on First Coast's uncompleted sign, and a notice to show cause was issued on April 6, 1990, on the ground the sign did not meet spacing requirements. However, because at that time Motel Delores' sign was on DOT right-of-way without DOT's permission, there was no lawful, permitted sign on the same side of the road within 1,000 feet of First Coast's sign and thus the notice was improvidently issued. Indeed, a DOT representative acknowledged at hearing that Motel Delores' sign was "illegal" at the time the notice to show cause was issued against First Coast. In view of this, First Coast's application for a sign permit should have been approved. On April 19, 1990, First Coast requested a hearing to contest DOT's preliminary decision. Among other things, First Coast contended that the Motel Delores sign was illegally erected and thus its sign met all spacing requirements. For reasons not of record, DOT did not forward this and Motel Delores' first request for hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings until more than a year later. During this period of time, both respondents completed construction of their new signs and have continued to use them pending the outcome of these proceedings. Even so, DOT agreed at hearing that respondents should not be charged with violating the cease work orders posted on the two signs. On October 17, 1991, DOT advised Schatz by letter that it was "rescinding all violations issued under the (April 6, 1990) notice" because the notice had incorrectly identified the location of the sign as 385 feet north of Malacompra Road when in fact the actual location was 385 feet south of Malacompra Road. Schatz's happiness was short-lived, however, because DOT then issued another notice to show cause on November 1, 1991, alleging that the sign did not have a valid permit tag and was located on DOT's right-of-way. Motel Delores thereafter requested a hearing on November 8, 1991. On November 20, 1991, Motel Delores filed with DOT an outdoor advertising permit affidavit form in which it represented that its sign tag had been stolen and a replacement tag was necessary. The request was approved by DOT on January 14, 1992, and replacement tag number BF 209-25 was issued. On February 1, 1992, or less than a week prior to final hearing, DOT and Motel Delores executed a five year lease agreement whereby DOT agreed that the motel could keep its sign on DOT's property for $200 per year. According to Schatz, he had requested such a lease from DOT in late 1990 and it took more than a year for DOT to formalize the agreement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the notices to show cause issued against respondents on April 6, 1990, and November 1, 1991, be dismissed with prejudice. It is further recommended that a sign permit be issued to First Coast Outdoor Advertising, Inc. for its sign erected on State Road A1A in Flagler County. DONE and ORDERED this 30 day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 30 day of March, 1992. Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Suite 1150 200 East Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801 Jerrald D. Schatz 5992 North Oceanside Boulevard Hammock, FL 32137-2601 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, Agency Clerk 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
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 20, 1987, a DOT sign inspector observed a portable outdoor advertising sign along U.S. 19 near the intersection of 108th Street North in Pinellas County which appeared to be located on the DOT right-of-way. 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 edge of the paved lane. Measurements taken showed the sign to be 38 feet from the edge of the pavement. Photos taken of the sign at the time the sign was inspected reveal that the sign was damaged with the frame bent. Around noon of the day the sign was inspected, Respondent was notified by the user of the sign that the sign's frame had been bent and the sign damaged. A second call to Respondent around 1:30 P.M. advised that a warning notice had been placed on the sign. When Herb Selak arrived at the scene shortly thereafter, he observed the anchor missing from the sign and the sign damaged apparently having been hit by a construction company vehicle and pushed off of the parking lot where it had been located and anchored. Prior to the unauthorized removal of the sign onto the right-of-way by a third party, the sign was lawfully placed.
The Issue Whether a sign owned by Respondent and located on the northbound side of 27, at 853 U.S. 27 South, Lake Placid, Florida, is located in the road right-of-way, and must be removed.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is the state agency charged with the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, which regulates outdoor advertising structures along the state highway system. U.S. 27 in Highlands County, Florida, is a part of the state highway system, and title to the right-of-way for said highway is held in the name of the State. Respondent is the owner, and maintains a two sided sign structure (sign) located at 853 U.S. Highway 27 South, Lake Placid, Florida, in Highlands County, which has been erected in the DOT right of way of U.S. Highway 27, inventory section 44, approximately 300 feet South on the North bound side of the highway. The sign is approximately 8 foot by 8 foot made of wood with wooden poles, and contains the advertising copy: "Mrs. CLAIR Psychic...Tarot...Palms...(Se habla espanol)", followed by a telephone number. On March 22, 1991, Respondent was served with a Notice of Violation from the DOT concerning said sign, and was advised that said sign was erected in violation of Florida law, and must be removed within ten working days of the notice. Said sign is presently standing in the DOT right-of-way, as of the date of the formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's request for an exemption from the provisions of Section 479.11(8), Florida Statutes, be DENIED and that Respondent be ordered to remove said sign from the DOT right of way, in accordance with the provisions of Section 479.107, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 23rd day of December, 1991. Copies furnished: Jay O. Barber, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Laura Uwanawich Mrs. Clair 853 U.S. 27 South Lake Placid, FL 33852 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. #58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of s. 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, a law which requires that a permit be applied for, granted, and renewed each year as a regulation for outdoor advertising in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The following described sign had no valid permit tag for the years 1974-1975, 1976-1977: A two-faced sign, one face north and one face south, located on SR 33 at the junction of SR 48 with copy "Clear Lake Campground". Notice of violation regarding the subject sign was properly sent by the Department of Transportation and received by the Respondent. A hearing was requested by the Respondent through Linda Vernon, Wildwood, Florida. A notice was duly sent and the time set for 10:00 A.M. The hearing officer postponed this hearing until 1:00 P.M. awaiting the arrival of a representative of the Respondent. There was no appearance.
Recommendation Remove subject signs ten (10) days after date of final order unless said signs are previously removed by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Philip Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. C. W. Lichtenberger Post Office Box 47 DeLand, Florida 32720
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.
The Issue Whether Respondent properly denied Lamar Outdoor Advertising's Petition for Waiver or Variance from Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2)(b).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the State agency responsible for regulating outdoor advertising signs located within 660 feet of the State Highway system, interstate, or federal-aid primary system in accordance with Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Petitioner owns and operates outdoor advertising signs in the State of Florida. In December 2004, Petitioner purchased four outdoor advertising signs adjacent to Interstate 4 in Polk County, Florida. The signs are located on lots zoned for residential use. In accordance with Section 479.111, Florida Statutes, signs adjacent to interstate highways and federal-aid primary roads are only authorized in commercial, industrial zoned or un-zoned areas. These signs are, therefore, not in conformance with Section 479.111, Florida Statutes, and are non- conforming signs. When initially permitted, the height from the ground to the bottom of the sign (referred to as "Height Above Ground Level" or "HAGL") for each of Petitioner's four signs was ten feet or less. The overall height of the signs from the ground to the top of the sign ranged from 34 to 37 feet. Respondent erected a sound attenuation barrier (soundwall) along Interstate 4 in Polk County, Florida. As a result, the signs were blocked from view by passing motorists. In August 2006, without seeking the permission of Respondent, Petitioner raised the HAGL of the four signs to a height of 18 to 23 feet above ground level to allow the signs to remain visible over the soundwall. In September 2007, Respondent issued Notices of Intent to Revoke Petitioner's permits for violations of Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2). Previously, in 1972, an agreement was entered into between the State of Florida and the United States Department of Transportation to implement and carry out the Highway Beautification Act (HBA) by controlling outdoor advertising signs located along interstates and federal-aid primary highways. One of the purposes stated in the 1972 Agreement, was to allow Florida "to remain eligible to receive the full amount of all Federal-aid highway funds." In accordance with the Agreement, a determination that Florida failed to maintain effective control of outdoor advertising could result in a 10 percent reduction in federal highway funds. Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007 was primarily drawn from the federal regulation language in 23 CFR 750.707, in effect since 1973, which provides as to non- conforming signs: (5) The sign must remain substantially the same as it was on the effective date of the State law or regulations. Reasonable repair and maintenance of the sign, including a change of advertising message, is not a change which would terminate non-conforming rights. Each State shall develop its own criteria to determine when customary maintenance ceases and a substantial change has occurred which would terminate non- conforming rights. In November 2007, after receiving the Notices of Intent to Revoke Permits, Petitioner filed a Petition for Variance from Respondent to authorize the raising of these four signs blocked by a noise attenuation barrier. Thereafter, Respondent notified the Division Administrator for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that a request for a variance had been received from Petitioner. By letter dated January 7, 2008, FHWA was asked (1) if it had developed any minimum criteria as to when a substantial change had occurred to a non-conforming sign as prohibited by federal regulations and (2) if no minimum criteria were established, whether a variance from an existing rule could be granted to allow a non-conforming sign to be increased in height as minimally necessary to be seen over a noise attenuation barrier. By letter dated February 5, 2008, FHWA responded that "a minimum Federal criteria has not been established," and "an increase in height is considered an expansion or improvement, which is not allowed for non-conforming signs." The letter concluded: To summarize, the HBA and its implementing regulations do not permit the adjustment of a non-conforming sign where action by the State transportation agency obstructs the visibility of the sign from the highway. As such, the FHWA would expect FDOT to deny the request for a variance from the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 10.007(2). FHWA's February 2008, correspondence was not its first attempt to address modifications to non-conforming signs. By letter dated June 15, 2000, FHWA informed the Florida Department of Transportation that non-conforming signs were not permitted to be raised to be seen over a noise wall, stating: Federal regulations require that non- conforming signs must remain substantially the same as they are on the effective date of the State law or regulations enacted to control them. FDOT is required to develop its own criteria to determine when customary maintenance ceases and a substantial change has occurred which would terminate non- conforming rights. In this instance, we believe raising the sign above the wall would constitute a substantial change and appreciate that FDOT has come to the same conclusion. In September 2000, Respondent asked FHWA if non- conforming signs could be reduced in size or height when required by local ordinance. FHWA agreed to allow a reduction in height for non-conforming signs, if required by local ordinaces. Later in 2000, FHWA also authorized the addition of catwalks or other fall-protection devices to non-conforming signs provided such addition does not increase the structural integrity of the sign or prolong the life of the sign. Respondent's rules were amended accordingly to allow non- conforming signs to be reduced in size when required by a local ordinance and catwalks and other fall-protection devices to be added provided they did not increase the signs' structural integrity. Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-10.007(a)(2), and (2)(b)(1). In December 2003, Respondent sought FHWA concurrence on amending Rule 14-10.007 to allow sign owners to submit a request to raise a non-conforming sign when a noise attenuation barrier screens or blocks the sign. The text of the proposed rule provided that any requests approved by Respondent would be forwarded to FHWA for final acceptance. In March 2005, FHWA responded through a memorandum providing: "Guidance on Adjustment of Non-Conforming Outdoor Advertising Signs." As background, the memorandum noted: With the broader use of noise walls around the country, the conflict between HBA prohibition against substantial improvement of non-conforming signs and sign owners' demands to maintain sign visibility is arising with increasing frequency. In analysis and guidance, the memorandum stated: Current FHWA regulations permit a non- conforming sign to remain "at its particular location for the duration of its normal life subject to customary maintenance." 23 CFR 750.707(c). The intent of the HBA is to permit a non-conforming sign to continue in place until it is destroyed, abandoned, or discontinued, or is removed by the State (which can use 75 percent Federal funding for the removal of the sign). A non- conforming sign must "remain substantially the same as it was on the effective date of the State law or regulations" adopted to implement the HBA. 23 CFR 750.707(d)(5). A height increase is an expansion and improvement of a sign. In addition, increasing sign height to clear a noise wall typically will require new structural measures, such as a monopole design, that would be inconsistent with the concept of limiting non-conforming signs to the duration of their normal lives. The memorandum concluded with the admonition: "If a State fails to comply with the non-conforming sign provisions of the HBA, it will become necessary to evaluate whether the State is maintaining effective control." On February 25, 2008, Respondent entered an Order Denying Petitioner's Petition for Variance or Waiver, noting: "FHWA has consistently advised Respondent that any increase in height of a non-conforming sign would be a substantial change under the federal regulation." As the underlying purpose of the laws implementing Rule 14-10.007, was to implement and enforce the federal-state Agreement, the HBA of 1965, and federal regulations, Respondent concluded that "Petitioner has not offered any contrary basis for Respondent to conclude that the purpose of the laws underlying the rule can be achieved with a variance." The Order Denying the Petition for Variance or Waiver went on to state that Petitioner has not established a substantial hardship as the affected signs were all over 30 years old and represented only four of the 900 signs owned by Lamar Outdoor Advertising - Lakeland. Lastly, Respondent cited to several cases for the proposition that a sign owner does not have a right to be seen by passing motorists and concluded: Any value Petitioner derived from having signs visible from Interstate 4 was also based on an artificially created condition established in an exercise of the state's police power for the benefit of the traveling public. Principles of fairness do not compel Respondent to waive its rules and risk the loss of federal funds so that Petitioner can continue receiving the same state-sponsored benefit of passing motorists that the signs enjoyed before the soundwall was erected. Petitioner is subject to and affected by the rule in the same manner as every other sign owner who might wish to construct improvements to a non-conforming sign to enhance or maintain its economic vitality.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying Petitioner's Request for a Waiver or Variance. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 7th day of October, 2008.
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.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner of a sign located alongside I-4 25.03 miles east of U.S. 301 (Exhibit 2). This sign is located outside the city limits of Lakeland, Florida, and is within ten feet of the beginning of the transition of pavement going to the off ramp from the I-4. When inspected in September, 1978, the sign did not have a permit affixed thereto and the records of Petitioner do not indicate this sign has ever been permitted. In 1978 the panels on this sign read "Hilton Inn." When inspected on 25 October 1982, the photograph (Exhibit 1) was taken. This photo shows the panels are missing and the Hilton Inn message does not appear.
