Findings Of Fact On or about July 31, 1987, a DOT sign inspector observed Respondent's sign apparently on the right-of-way of U.S. 19, 1000 feet south of Sunset Road in Pasco County. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 at this location on the east side of U.S. 19 extends 32 feet from the eastern edge of the paved lane. The sign was located 25 feet from the eastern edge of the paved lane. Respondent admitted that the sign was in the right- of-way the day the inspector was there, but was relocated there without their knowledge or consent by the contractor paving the parking lot. Davis Center gave Respondent permission to place their sign (Exhibit 2 and 3) on its property. The center is in the process of repaving its parking area in stages so as not to block off all parking at one time. To clear the area for the paving equipment the contractor moved Respondent's sign to the grassy area alongside the parking lot. As soon as Respondent learned its sign had been placed on the right-of-way, it removed the sign from the right-of-way.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Elgie Products (Elgie), is a partnership whose general partner is Richard J. Connolly, Sr. The mailing address of the business is 3000 Southwest 26th Terrace, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. At the present time, Connolly and his wife are engaged in the business of raising bees, making draperies and installing plexiglass under the name of Elgie Products. They also reside at the same location. Elgie's property consists of slightly more than four acres and lies one block south of State Road 84 and two blocks west of Interstate 95 in a small unincorporated pocket of Broward County, Florida. It is less than one-half mile from the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. The area is zoned M1 (light industrial, small manufacturing) and has only a few residential dwellings in the area including that of petitioner. A metal dump yard for wrecked automobiles lies just east of petitioner's property, a Days Inn Motel is on its north side, and DOT construction material and equipment associated with Interstate 595 lie to its south. By its application, petitioner seeks to place an outdoor sign on its property. The sign will be leased to an air carrier, and the revenues derived therefrom used to supplement the Connolly's income. After reviewing the application, respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), issued proposed agency action on May 21, 1986 denying the application on the ground the sign would be within 500 feet of a restricted interchange. The denial prompted the instant proceeding. Through unknown and perhaps unfortunate circumstances, DOT decided to locate and construct Interstate 595 on an east-west alignment less than 1000 feet south of petitioner's property. In fact, the entrance ramp to I-595 will be situated less than 500 feet from the proposed site of petitioner's sign. Moreover, the sign will be visible to traffic using I-595. It is also located within 660 feet of I-595 right-of-way. Such a placement of the sign is impermissible under DOT's rules and governing statutes. Petitioner contends that DOT made an exception to its rules almost seven years ago when it approved an application filed by 3-M National Advertising Company to place an outdoor advertising sign at the intersection of State Road 84 and I-95 even though the sign was less than 150 feet from I-95 and was visible to traffic using that highway. In this regard, a DOT outdoor sign administrator acknowledged that he may have been in error when he approved the application in late 1979. However, the City of Davie has subsequently annexed the area where 3-M's sign is located, and 3-M is now exempt from DOT enforcement action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Elgie Products be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of September, 1986.
Findings Of Fact On December 9, 1986, Respondent owned a sign that had recently been erected along the west side of U.S. 19 in Pasco County, Florida, 37 feet from the nearest edge of the pavement. The DOT right-of-way at this location extends 88 feet west of the western edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. Upon seeing the DOT sign inspector in the vicinity of the sign, an employee of Respondent came to the scene, saw the violation notice posted and offered to relocate the sign off of the right-of-way. The sign in issue was relocated off of the DOT right-of-way within ten days of the notice of the violation. U.S. 19 at this location is a part of the State Highway System.
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 Union Street at its intersection with Jefferson Avenue in Jacksonville, Florida, is also known as US 23 and is a federal-aid primary highway. It is a one-way street for east-bound traffic and is located within the corporate limits of Jacksonville. The proposed sign would be located on the north side of Union Street 20 feet west of the intersection with Jefferson Street and would face west to be viewed by the eastbound traffic on Union Street. Zoning at the proposed location is commercial/industrial. Criterion Advertising Company has been issued permits for two signs near the intersection of Union Street and Jefferson Avenue (Exhibits 5 and 6). These signs are on the south side of a building on the northeast corner of this intersection, thus making them parallel to Union Street 14 feet and 20 feet respectively east of the Jefferson Avenue pavement. Jefferson Avenue is not a federal-aid primary highway. In their inventory the Department of Transportation (DOT) carries the Criterion signs as facing westerly because they can be seen by the eastbound traffic on US 23. There are only four blocks on an application for a sign permit in which to mark the direction in which the sign faces. These are the four cardinal points of the compass. Highways in Florida, as well as the streets in most cities in Florida, run generally in a north/south or east/west direction. Signs alongside a federal-aid primary highway that are intended to be seen by northbound traffic are carried in DOT inventory as southerly facing signs whether they actually face in a southerly compass direction or not. Advertising signs, the face of which are parallel to the highway from which they are viewed, are not as saleable as are signs at right angles, or nearly so, to the highway.
Findings Of Fact On February 28, 1979, the manager of Chipley Hotel, Mrs. Linda Cain, made application for a permit to erect an outdoor advertising sign on the south side of I-10, 1.4 miles west of S.R. 77 in Washington County, Florida. Employees of the Department in Chipley assisted Mrs. Cain in the completion of the permit application and advised her that the property on which the sign was to be erected was zoned for commercial or industrial use. She had no independent knowledge of the zoning or lack of zoning on this property. Thereafter, Department personnel inspected the site, final approval of the permit application was given by the Department of Transportation, and a permit was issued to Chipley Motel authorizing the erection of an outdoor advertising sign at the requested location on I-10. In reliance on the issuance of this permit, Chipley Motel erected a sign at the permitted location. Each year Chipley Motel has paid to the Department the annual permit fees for the renewal of this permit. These permit fees have been paid for the years 1979 through 1985, and they have been accepted by the Department. Back in 1979, when employees of the Department at the Chipley District Office made their determination that the property where the sign was to be located was zoned commercial or industrial, they inquired of county officials and relied on the information supplied by them. The property where the subject sign has been erected is not zoned either commercial or industrial, and there has never been any actual zoning for this property. There exists no commercial or industrial activity within 800 feet of the subject sign's location which would qualify the site as an unzoned commercial or industrial area.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department's Notice of Violation issued on October 3, 1984, be Dismissed, and that the Respondent's sign on the south side of I-10, 1.4 miles west of SR 77, facing west, in Washington County, Florida be allowed to remain in place as a nonconforming sign. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 26th day of April, 1985 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 26th day of April, 1985.
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 Respondent is a company owned by Jack Williams that leases portable signs to businesses desiring to advertise. These signs are constructed to attach letters to spell out the advertised message on the sign and illuminate the sign at night if desired. The signs are sufficiently small and light that they can be readily moved as the lessee desires. On June 18, 1986, one of Respondent's signs leased to a car dealer was found to be in the DOT right-of-way along U.S. 19, 0.28 miles of Candlewood Drive and in front of the business advertised. The nearest edge of the sign to the highway was 46 feet from the easterly edge of the pavement. The eastern edge of the DOT right of way at this point is 50 feet from the edge of the paved surface of U.S. 19. U.S. 19 is a federal-aid primary highway. Respondent's lease agreement (Exhibit 8) is in the form of a statement billing the lessee of the sign for one month use of the sign. That statement provides it shall be the customer's responsibility to comply with state and local laws and regulations.
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.
The Issue Whether the outdoor advertising signs of Respondent were in violation of Florida Statutes 479.07(1), sign erected without a state permit; Whether the subject signs were in violation of Florida Statutes 479.11(1), sign erected within 660 feet of the right of way of a federal aid highway; Whether subject signs are new and different signs inasmuch as they have new facings, are erected on new poles and are materially elevated from the location of previous signs. Whether subject signs are in violation of the federal and state laws and should be removed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Transportation, issued to the Respondent, Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia, notices of alleged violations of Chapter 479 and Section 335.13, Florida Statutes, on July 28, 1975 with respect to five (5) signs at five (5) different locations, to-wit: .14 miles south of Volusia County on Interstate Highway 95; .75 miles south of Volusia County on Interstate Highway 95; 1.58 miles south of Volusia County on Interstate Highway 95; and 3.51 miles south of Volusia County on Interstate Highway 95. Pursuant to these notices, the Respondent requested this hearing for the determination of whether the Respondent is in violation of Florida Statutes, as alleged in the violation notice. Respondent is the owner of five (5) signs referred to in paragraph (1) of these findings Five signs with similar copy were erected by the Respondent in May of 1971 at the approximate location of subject signs. The Respondent owned and maintained the five (5) signs from April of 1971 until April-June of 1975 when such signs were removed and the subject signs built. Each of these signs is within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right of way of an interstate highway system, but each of the signs have a permit attached, first issued in 1971 and reissued through 1974 inasmuch as the former signs were owned by Respondent and lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971, and became nonconforming on December 8, 1971, under Section 479.24(1), Florida Statutes. Between April-June, 1975, the Respondent replaced the signs existing since 1971 to better advertise its products along 1-95, south of Volusia County, Florida. Said replacement signs are in the approximate location as the replaced signs and said replacement signs have the same size facing as the replaced signs. The replacement signs are on different poles, wood being substituted for metal and at a more elevated height (between 16 and 20 feet higher) than the replaced signs. The replacement subject signs are much more visible to the traveling public than the old signs because of the materially increased elevation. The charge in the location of the subject signs, although only a short distance, the new facing materials, the replacement of metal poles with wooden poles and the decided increase in elevation make these different signs within the meaning of Chapter 479, F.S., and the federal regulations, thus, becoming new signs requiring permits rather than qualifying as nonconforming with the customary maintenance or repair of existing signs, allowed under Section 479.01(12), F.S., infra. The owner of the signs was given written notice of the alleged violations and said Respondent has had a hearing under Section 479.17, F.S., and Chapter 120, F.S.
Recommendation Remove subject signs if said signs have not been removed by the owner within ten (10) days after entry of the final order herein. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of May, 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: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Benjamin F. Wren, III, Esquire 0. Box 329 Deland, Florida 32720
