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.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent should revoke Petitioner's sign permits and retrieve Petitioner's permit tags because Petitioner violated Sections 479.07(5) and 479.08, Florida Statutes, 1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 10.004(7), 2/ by allegedly removing its sign from its property and by failing to display the permit tag prior to removing the sign.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation formed in 1983 by Mr. Rodney Forton. Mr. Forton is the president and sole shareholder of Petitioner. Sometime in 1987, Petitioner entered into a management agreement with Cotee River Outdoor Advertising Company ("Cotee River"). The management agreement provided that Cotee River would construct a sign on property owned by Petitioner on U.S. highway 19 in New Port Richey, Florida (the "Cotee River sign"). Cotee River agreed to pay Petitioner a portion of the advertising revenues from the sign. The Cotee River Permit On May 26, 1987, Cotee River applied for an outdoor advertising sign permit from Respondent. The application described the Cotee River sign as a rectangular wood sign measuring 10 feet by 20 feet, with its lowest point approximately 15 feet above ground level and its highest point approximately 25 feet above the crown of the road. Respondent approved the application and mailed the approval to Cotee River on May 29, 1987. On June 3, 1987, Respondent located the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory at, Section 595, ". . . N/B 5.06 in F/N." The number "5.06" indicates that the sign is located at milepost 5.06 on U.S. 19. 3/ Mileposts describe the location of each sign by the distance of the sign from a fixed point. Each of Respondent's outdoor advertising inspectors measures the milepost for each sign in his or her territory using a distance measuring instrument. Respondent then enters the milepost for each sign in Respondent's sign inventory. The milepost of 5.06 that Respondent assigned to the Cotee River permit was incorrect. In May 1987, Cotee River constructed a sign on Petitioner's property pursuant to the permit granted by Respondent. The sign was a metal monopole sign rather than the wood sign described in the application. The Cotee River sign was not constructed at milepost 5.060. Cotee River rented the sign to outdoor advertisers. However, Cotee River failed to pay any portion of the advertising revenue to Petitioner, and the parties resolved the matter by mutual agreement. Petitioner and Cotee River agreed that Cotee River would release its right to manage the Cotee River sign in consideration for the right to manage a sign located on other property owned by Petitioner. The agreement provided that Petitioner would pay Cotee River a prescribed sum in exchange for the performance of specific duties by Cotee River. Cotee River failed to perform the duties specified in the agreement. Petitioner refused to pay the balance of payments. Petitioner sued Cotee River. Cotee River went into bankruptcy and was dissolved. Petitioner's Permit On July 14, 1992, Petitioner applied for an outdoor advertising sign permit for the Cotee River sign. The application described the sign as an existing rectangular, metal, monopole "sign in place," measuring approximately 10 feet by 20 feet. The application stated that the sign was first erected in May 1987. Respondent approved the application from Petitioner and mailed the approval to Petitioner on October 12, 1992. Respondent again incorrectly listed the location of the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory as, Section 595, ". . . N/B 5.060 in F/N." Respondent issued permit tag number BG341-25 to Petitioner. Although Petitioner used the Cotee River sign to generate advertising revenue, Petitioner never displayed any tag numbers on the sign. The tag numbers remained in Petitioner's files until sometime in 1995. Dr. Goluba's Permit At about the same time that Cotee River went out of business in 1992, Robert L. Goluba, D.D.S., owned property immediately adjacent to Petitioner's property. Prior to March 1993, an unidentified representative of Respondent contacted Dr. Goluba. The representative told Dr. Goluba that there were two signs on Dr. Goluba's property that were going to be taken down if the sign permits were not renewed. The representative mistakenly identified one of the two signs as the Cotee River sign. The representative went on to explain that Respondent could avoid the expense of taking down the two signs if Dr. Goluba obtained permits for the signs. Dr. Goluba wanted the advertising revenues and agreed to obtain the necessary permits. On March 2, 1993, Dr. Goluba applied for a sign permit for the Cotee River sign he mistakenly believed to be located on his property. The application described the sign as an "existing" rectangular, metal, monopole sign measuring approximately 10 feet by 24 feet, with its lowest point approximately 18 feet above ground level and its highest point approximately 30 feet above the crown of the road. The application stated that the sign was first erected in May 1987. Respondent approved the application from Dr. Goluba and mailed the approval to him on March 8, 1993. Respondent listed the location of the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory as, Section 595, ". . . N/M.P. 4.870 in F/N." Respondent incorrectly listed Dr. Goluba's permit in the sign inventory at milepost 4.870. On March 24, 1993, Respondent issued permit number BG960-35 to Dr. Goluba. Although Dr. Goluba never derived advertising revenue from the Cotee River sign, he did display his permit on the sign. Dr. Goluba inadvertently failed to pay the fee required to renew the sign permit in 1994 and, therefore, failed to display current permits on the sign. On April 11, 1994, Respondent issued a Notice of Violation, Failure To Display Permit Tag. The New Outdoor Advertising Inspector In early 1995, a new outdoor advertising inspector assumed responsibility for the territory in which the Cotee River sign was located. On April 11, 1995, the inspector conducted a field inspection to verify the mileposts and signs in the territory for which he was responsible. The inspector correctly identified the milepost of the Cotee River sign as milepost 4.980. He found no sign subject to regulation by Respondent 4/ located at milepost 5.060. Milepost 5.060 and 4.980 are approximately 422 feet apart. Relevant law prohibits the location of regulated signs within 1,000 feet of each other. 5/ No exceptions to 1,000 foot prohibition applied to the Cotee River sign. The inspector concluded that Petitioner had removed the wood sign originally permitted to Cotee River in 1987 and which Respondent had incorrectly listed in its sign inventory as being located at milepost 5.060. On July 12, 1995, Respondent issued to Petitioner a Notice Of Violation -- Removed Sign. On August 22, 1995, Respondent ordered the revocation of Petitioner's tag permit because Petitioner had allegedly removed the Cotee River sign from milepost 5.060. Respondent never issued a Notice of Violation to Petitioner for failure to display his tag numbers on the Cotee River sign. Petitioner protested the revocation of its permit and refused to return the permit tags to Respondent. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. In the meantime, Dr. Goluba's accountant had inadvertently failed to pay the permit fee for the Cotee River sign. Respondent placed the Cotee River sign on Respondent's "cutdown list" for failure to pay the required fees. On June 20, 1995, Respondent had the Cotee River sign cut down and removed. Respondent sent Dr. Goluba a bill in the amount of $4,990 for the cost of cutting the sign down and removing it. Prior to the date Respondent cut down and removed the Cotee River sign, Petitioner notified the inspector verbally and with written documentation that the sign was owned by Petitioner, located on Petitioner's property, and permitted to Petitioner. The inspector found that Respondent's records did not agree with Petitioner's records. The inspector informed Petitioner that the "cutdown order" came from Tallahassee and there was nothing the inspector could do. Dr. Goluba's tags were displayed on the Cotee River sign at the time it was cut down and removed. Ms. Maria Passanisi was the broker who managed the sign for Dr. Goluba. Ms. Passanisi was at the site when the sign was cut down and removed. She protested Respondent's action so vehemently that the police officers regulating traffic at the scene had to intervene to quell the disturbance. After Respondent cut down the Cotee River sign, Petitioner drove a stick into the ground where the sign had been located and displayed the permit tags for the removed sign on the stick. The tags were displayed on the stick at the time of the hearing. The Computerized Sign Inventory Respondent uses a computer system to maintain its sign inventory. The computer system does not accept the same milepost for two or more regulated signs. When Petitioner applied for its sign permit in 1992, Respondent was required to carry the Cotee River permit in the inventory as a void permit. The computer system would not accept the same milepost for Petitioner's permit and the void Cotee River permit. In order to circumvent the computer system, Respondent's supervisor of property management arbitrarily changed the milepost number entered for the Cotee River permit from milepost 5.060 to milepost 4.970. As late as September 20, 1993, Respondent's computerized sign inventory identified the Cotee River sign as being located at three incorrect mileposts. The inventory located the same sign permitted to Cotee River, Petitioner, and Dr. Goluba, respectively, at mileposts 4.970, 5.060, and 4.870. In 1995, the new outdoor advertising inspector correctly located the Cotee River sign at milepost 4.980. However, he mistakenly assumed that milepost 5.060 was the correct milepost for Petitioner's sign and erroneously concluded that Petitioner had removed its sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not remove the permitted sign and that the permits issued to Petitioner are valid. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1997.
Findings Of Fact On July 24, 1987, a DOT outdoor advertising sign inspector observed a portable sign in front of Respondent's business establishment along U.S. 19 just north of SR 696A. The right-of-way along the west side of U.S. 19 extends 54 feet from the western edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. The sign was located 42 feet from the western edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. Thus the sign was clearly within the right of way. Respondent presented testimony that the widening of U.S. 19 had already led to the taking of half its property including a large sign advertising the business, and the development of sink holes had caused the sign to be moved closer to the highway.
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 Following receipt of the complaint from a competing sign company, Petitioner had Respondent's sign located on the I-110 1844 feet north of SR-296 checked to ascertain its exact distance from the on-ramp to the I-110 nearest this sign. The District sign inspector measured the distance between the point where the I-110 pavement widening begins along the I-110 to the point on the I-110 nearest the sign. This measurement was made twice, once with two other employees of Petitioner and once with one other employee. This distance measured 469 feet. Respondent's witness testified that he and another employee of Respondent measured the same distance and determined it to be 514 feet 1 inch. After considering the contradictory testimony presented, it is found that the sign is located less than 500 feet from the beginning of the widening of the I-110 at the on-ramp which distance is measured along the I-110. Prior to this sign being erected, Respondent's representative visited the site of the sign with Petitioner's District sign inspector and was advised that the location was satisfactory and that a permit could and would be issued for a sign at this location. Respondent built the sign on the spot pointed out to the inspector at a cost of some $12,000, applied for and was issued a permit for this sign. No evidence was presented that Respondent in any manner misled the sign inspector or made any misrepresentation either while both were at the site or at any other time to induce Petitioner to issue a permit for this sign. No evidence was submitted that the sign in question was outside an incorporated town or city.
Findings Of Fact 1. On or about January 18, 1988, a DOT sign inspector observed Respondent's signs 600 and 625 feet south of Candlewood Drive in Pasco County on what appeared to be the easterly right-of-way of U.S. 19. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 at this location extends 59 feet from the easterly edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. Respondent's signs were 49 feet from the edge of the paved surface of U.S. 19. U.S. 19 is a Federal Aid Primary Highway. Respondent located his signs east of the berm along U.S. 19 which he believed to be off of the DOT right-of-way.
The Issue Whether subject sign is in violation of state and federal law for the reason that no permit was secured at time of erection of subject sign.
Findings Of Fact Respondent proceeded to erect subject sign prior to January 29, 1975, and continued such erection after January 29, 1975, the date a Notice of Outdoor Advertising Violation was served on Respondent Corporation by the District Sign Inspector. Said notice of violation notified Respondent that Respondent Corporation was in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes or Section 335.13, Florida statutes for the reason that no permit had been secured and that the erection of said sign was in violation of the specific requirement of Chapter 479, Florida statutes inasmuch as subject sign was approximately 250' from an existing sign. Respondent continued to erect subject sign despite objections from the Florida Department of Transportation. On the date of the hearing the Respondent testified that as of that date an application had been made and permit had been approved. The sign coordinator testified that the sign which had been permitted and which was so spaced to prohibit the building of Respondent's sign had been removed after the Notice of Hearing had been set. The complainant contended that Respondent erected subject sign without first applying for a permit; that after Notice of Violation Respondent disregarded the notice and the law and continued to build subject sign; that not until notice of this hearing was received did Respondent "buy out" the offending sign which prohibited the issuance of permits. The Respondent did not deny that no permit was issued before erection of subject sign but contends that permits have now been issued.
The Issue Whether Respondent's sign is in violation of the applicable Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner of a sign located 3.138 miles south of State Road 5A on the southbound side of Highway U.S. 1. The sign is visible form the U.S. 1, and is attached to another sign. The other sign is owned by Lamar Advertising, was erected in 1964, and was issued permit no. 746-08 by Petitioner. The annual renewal fees for the permit have been paid. Respondent's sign has never been issued a permit by Petitioner. U.S. 1 is a federal-aid primary highway. Respondent's sign advertises his telephone number and business, which is at a different location than the sign. Respondent's sign is located within 1,000 feet of Lamar Advertising's sign.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order requiring that Respondent's sign be removed. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of May 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 20th day of May 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Attorney Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Jim Davenport 1005 North Dixie Highway New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32069 Kaye N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, Mail Station 58 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
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.
The Issue Whether three signs of Respondent are in violation of the Federal and State laws, rules and regulations by violating the set-back requirements and the requirements for state permit.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was issued a thirty (30) day Violation Notice by Petitioner for a sign located .5 of a mile west of State Road 79 on the south side of I-10 approximately twenty (20) feet from the fence on the outer edge of the right-of- way of I-10. The sign advertised gas, oil, food, camping, road service, and CEO radio shop and is owned by Respondent Rich Oil Company, Bonifay, Florida, a business in operation about .9 of a Mile from the sign. The violations were listed as improper set-back and no permit. A thirty (30) day violation notice was issued to the Respondent by Petitioner on a sign located .6 of a mile east of State Road 79 on the north side of I-10 approximately twenty (20) feet from the fence located on the outer edge of the right-of-way. The products advertised were gas, oil, food, camping, road services, CB radio shop of the business operation of Respondent which business was located about .9 of a mile from the sign. The violations were listed as improper set-back and no permit. A thirty (30) day violation notice was issued to Respondent by Petitioner for a sign located on the southeast corner of St. Johns Road and State Road 79 located six (6) to twelve (12) feet from the outer edge of the right-of-way of State Road 79 advertising the products of Respondent: gas, oil, food, camping, road service, CB radio shop. The business was Operated about one hundred and eighty (180) feet from the sign. The violation was listed as improper set-back and no permit. No state permits were applied for or granted for any of the three subject signs. The signs were set back from the federal aid highway as indicated on the Violation Notices. The signs referred to in (1) and (2) above located east and west of the intersection of State Road 79 and I-10 were placed there by Respondent who stated that they were essential for his business and that the business would be diminished if the signs were removed. The sign described in (3) above on State Road 79 is shown by photograph to have a trailer nearby with a sign on it. Said sign on the trailer is not a subject of this hearing.
Recommendation Remove the signs that are located east and west of the intersection of State Road 79 along the right-of-way of I-10 and described in Findings of Fact (1) and (2) herein. Remove the sign located along State Road 79 described in Findings of Fact (3) herein unless the Respondent removes said sign and relocates it within fifteen (15) feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way after obtaining a state permit. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of February, 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: Russell A. Cole, Jr., Esquire 123 N. Oklahoma Street Bonifay, Florida 32425 John W. Scruggs, Esquire Department of Transportation Chipley, Florida 32425 George L. Waas, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Glen E. Rich Rich Oil Company Post Office Box 158 Bonifay, Florida 32425 Mr. J. E. Jordan District Sign Coordinator Department of Transportation Post Office Box 607 Chipley, Florida 32428 Mr. O. E. Black Administrator Outdoor Advertising Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Philip Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1605T RICH OIL COMPANY, Respondent. /
