Findings Of Fact The outdoor advertising sign which is the subject of this proceeding has been erected on a small parcel of land located approximately one-quarter of a mile west of First Street on Rockland Key, next to the southbound lane of U.S. 1, in Monroe County, Florida. This location is outside the city limits of any municipality. On approximately October 1, 1983, Mr. Frank Toppino, who is not a party to this proceeding and who was not presented as a witness at the hearing, leased the subject property to the Pier House Inn and Beach Club for one year. Under the terms of this lease, the Pier House Inn received the right to use the property for an outdoor advertising structure which the parties to the lease contemplated would be constructed there. The Pier House agreed to pay the sum of $950 to Mr. Toppino as rent for the year. In addition, the Pier House agreed to undertake construction of the sign on the land for the benefit of Mr. Toppino, the lessor, after the lease expires. The PIER House received the right to use this land for one year, and the right to place advertising copy of its choice on the face of the outdoor advertising structure for one year. The lease between Mr. Toppino and the Pier House Inn covering the subject property was received in evidence. This lease, and the testimony of the general manager of the Pier House Inn who executed it as lessee, which is detailed above, supports a finding of fact that Mr. Frank Toppino and not the Pier House was the owner of the outdoor advertising structure which is the subject of this proceeding on October 1, 1983. Subsequently, when the Department's Outdoor Advertising Administrator made his inspection of the subject sign, there was no state outdoor advertising permit affixed thereto, and the Department has not issued any permit for this structure. The sign was erected between two other permitted signs, and it is closer than 500 feet to both of these existing and permitted structures. The sign which is the subject of this proceeding is located adjacent to a federal- aid primary highway outside any incorporated city or town. It is visible from U.S. 1, and it is within 660 feet of the edge of the pavement of this highway. The Department's Outdoor Advertising Administrator made a determination that the Pier House Inn was the owner of the sign in question based upon information contained in a Monroe County Building Permit application, and based upon the hearsay information received during telephone conversations. However, this information is controverted by the direct testimony of the general manager of the Pier House Inn which is itself corroborated by the lease between Mr. Toppino and the Pier House which is in evidence. Thus, the testimony received from the Department's witness is not of sufficient quality to support a finding of fact that the Pier House Inn is the owner of the sign in question. Moreover, the Department has the burden of proof on this issue, and the quantity and quality of the evidence presented on the matter of ownership of the subject sign does not carry this burden.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the violation notice issued on December 12, 1983, to the Pier House Inn and Beach Club, be dismissed, without prejudice to the reinstitution of proceedings in which the violation notice is directed to the actual owner of the sign in question. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 23rd day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, 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 23rd day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 H. Ray Allen, Esquire 618 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, E. T. Legg and Company, owns the sign which is the subject of this proceeding, located on U.S. 441 or S.R. 7, approximately 1,117 feet north of Snake Creek Canal in Dade County, Florida. The sign faces north and south. The Department issued permits for a sign in 1979, one for the north face and one for the south face. These permits authorized a sign on U.S. 441 (State Road 7), approximately 550 feet north of Snake Creek Canal in Dade County, Florida. It is not clear from the record whether these permits were issued for the subject sign or for another sign but the permit tags issued for these permits were affixed to the subject sign until these tags were stolen. The Respondent's permit applications stated that the sign to be erected would be located 500 feet from the nearest existing sign. Subsequent to the Department's issuance of the permits for the subject sign, it determined that the Respondent's sign had been built closer than 500 feet from the nearest sign. The Respondent stipulated that there is less than 500 feet between the subject sign and the sign nearest to it. The sign nearest the subject sign is also owned by the Respondent. It is a two-faced permitted structure located south of the subject sign, and it was in place when the subject sign was erected. In 1981, the Respondent applied for tags to replace the permit tags the Department had issued pursuant to the 1979 application. These tags had been stolen. Replacement tags were not issued by the Department for the reason that it had determined the subject sign to be in violation of the spacing rule requiring 500 feet between signs. Permit fees had been paid by the Respondent through the year 1981. In October of 1981, the Department initiated this proceeding, charging the Respondent with violations of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes for not displaying permit tags on the subject sign, and for violating the spacing rule by locating this sign within 500 feet of an existing sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter its Final Order dismissing these charges against the Respondent, E.T. Legg and Company, subject to payment by the Respondent of all permit fees due for the years 1982 through 1986. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 31st day of July, 1986 at 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 31st day of July, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Charles C. Papy III, Esquire 201 Alhambra Circle Suite 502 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, Esquire General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the sign of the Petitioner should be removed for violating permit and setback requirements of the state and federal laws, rules and regulations.
Findings Of Fact Upon calling the hearing to order the attorneys for the parties stated that they had reached an agreement and stipulated as follows: The Petitioner, Bill Ousley, will remove the sign, the subject of the violation notice, located 180 feet south of Junction State Road S-270 on The Seaboard 27 within forty-five (45) days from date of this hearing. Petitioner further agrees that it will furnish to Respondent written notice of said removal and will not erect any other outdoor advertising signs without a permit from the Respondent, Department of Transportation.
Recommendation Remove the subject sign if it has not previously been removed by the Petitioner within forty-five (45) days from date herewith. Remove any other signs of Petitioner erected without a permit from the Florida Department of Transportation. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Barrett, Boyd and Holder Post Office Box 1501 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Atlantic Outdoor Advertising, Inc., has erected a sign adjacent to Southside Boulevard, approximately 346 feet from Atlantic Boulevard, in the City of Jacksonville, Florida. Atlantic Boulevard is a federal-aid primary highway, while Southside Boulevard is not. The place where the Respondent erected the subject sign is within 660 feet from Atlantic Boulevard, and this sign is visible from the main-traveled way of Atlantic Boulevard. The subject sign is approximately 300 feet from another sign, owned by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company, which was permitted by the Department in 1980 and 1981. The Naegele permits are still valid, and they authorize a sign within 660 feet of Atlantic Boulevard on the same side of the road as the Respondent's subject sign. When the Respondent erected its sign it had obtained a building permit from the City of Jacksonville, and it holds a lease to the site where the sign is located, but the Respondent does not have a state permit for its sign and no state sign permit has been applied for by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the outdoor advertising sign of the Respondent, Atlantic Outdoor Advertising, Inc., located adjacent to Southside Boulevard, approximately 346 feet from Atlantic Boulevard, in the City of Jacksonville, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 18th day of June, 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 18th day of June, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-3021T Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but irrelevant. Accepted, but irrelevant. Accepted, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Paul M. Glenn, Esquire 2900 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In March of 1984 the Respondent applied to the Department for a permit to erect a sign facing east at the location in question in this proceeding. The actual location proposed was 350 feet from the right-of-way of U.S. 17/92/441, adjacent to Oak Ridge Road, in Orange County, Florida. U.S. 17/92/441 is a federal-aid primary highway. Oak Ridge Road is a non-controlled road. There is another sign owned by the Respondent located 20 to 25 feet from the subject sign, but there is no evidence in the record to show which direction this other sign faces, or whether the two signs are on the same side of the highway. By memorandum dated April 5, 1984, the Department returned the Respondent's application for the reason that the sign location requested "is not on a federal-aid primary highway", and the Respondent "need only comply with local regulations". This memorandum stated further that "a state sign permit is not required" to locate a sign at the subject site. The application submitted by the Respondent in March of 1984 was returned with the notation on it that the proposed sign "need only comply with local regulations". Based upon the Department's response to its permit application, the Respondent erected its sign at the location where its application sought a permit. The sign that was erected is visible to traffic on U.S. 17/92/441, although it is parallel to U.S. 17/82/441 and at right angles to Oak Ridge Road. The notice of violation issued for the subject sign in July of 1985 seeks removal of this sign for not having the permit which the Respondent had applied for in 1984. The parties stipulated that it was the position of personnel of the Fifth District of the Department of Transportation prior to May of 1985 that state permits for outdoor advertising structures were not required when such structures were to be erected on a non-controlled highway, although said structures might be within 660 feet of a federal- aid primary highway. It was as a result of this erroneous interpretation of the applicable statutes and rules that the Respondent's application for a permit was returned in April of 1984 with the notation on it that a permit was not required. This erroneous interpretation allowed the Respondent's sign to be built.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against the Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corporation, in the violation notice issued on July 26, 1985, be dismissed, and that the sign which is the subject of this proceeding be given the classification of non-conforming sign. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 23rd day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, 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 23rd day of October, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Thomas Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The facts here involved are not in dispute. In 1966 Petitioner leased the property adjacent to Cypress Street in Tampa and erected a structure thereon on the 1-275 3.6 miles west of 1-4, containing signs facing both east and west. By application dated 20 October 1977 (Exhibits 1 and 2) Petitioner applied for permits for these signs. The applications were disapproved because of spacing. Likewise, on 20 October 1977, Petitioner submitted application for a permit for a sign on the 1-4 2.9 miles east of U.S. 41 with a copy of the lease dated 1967. This sign is located in Tampa and the application was also disapproved because of spacing. Both of these locations are zoned commercial and are within the corporate limits of Tampa, Florida. The structure on which the signs shown on Exhibits 1 and 2 were erected was built in 1968 and the sign involved in Exhibit 3 was built in 1967. The signs for which a permit was requested in Exhibits 1 and 2 is located 325 feet north of a permitted structure owned by Tampa Outdoor Advertising, Inc. on the same side of the street and facing in the same direction. The sign for which a permit was requested in Exhibit 3 is 275 feet west of a permitted sign facing the same direction and on the same side of the street which is owned by Foster and Kleiser. No appeal was taken from these disapprovals, but by applications dated June 19, 1979, Petitioner in Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 reapplied for permits for the same signs that had been disapproved in 1977. These applications were also disapproved because of spacing. The I-4 and the I-275 are part of the Interstate Highway system.
Findings Of Fact Whiteco is the successor in interest to a sign along U.S. 19, 7.83 miles north of the Pinellas-Pasco County line. Deeb Construction Co. obtained a permit on February 26, 1980, to erect a sign at the location in Finding of Fact #1 facing both north and south (Exhibit 2). This sign was erected and a permit for each face was issued. In January, 1981, Ridgewood Signs, on behalf of Deeb Construction, submitted Permit Affidavit Form (Exhibit 3) to replace the existing 8' x 16' sign with a 12' x 40' sign and on February 11, 1981, the DOT Sign Inspector prepared a Certificate of Sign Removal (Exhibit 4). Permit Tags AB 061 and AB 062 issued for the original sign were cancelled. On February 9, 1981, Deeb's application to erect a sign at this same location facing north only was approved (Exhibit 1). Tag Number AD 484-10 was issued for this north-facing sign. No application was submitted for a south- facing sign at this location and no tag for such a sign was issued. 5. Despite the lack of a permit for a south-facing sign at this location, a south face was placed on the structure and the notice of alleged violation (Exhibit 5) was issued for this south facing sign. This sign is 797 feet from a permitted sign along U.S. 19 on the same side of the highway facing south.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's sign was erected in 1974 on land leased by Respondent within the city limits of Sebring, Florida. At this time signs within the limits of incorporated towns and cities did not require permits or authorization from Petitioner. In 1975 Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, was changed so as to require signs located on federal-aid primary highways within the city limits to have permits issued by the Department of Transportation at no cost to the sign owner. U.S. 17 is a federal-aid primary highway. By application for outdoor advertising sign permit dated May 31, 1977 (Exhibit 4), Barnett Bank at Sebring applied for a permit to erect a sign along U.S. 17 some 200 feet from Respondent's existing sign. That application was approved by the Department of Transportation on July 12, 1977. Either before or after the Barnett Bank application was approved, Petitioner notified Respondent that its sign was in violation. Respondent is not in the sign business and no evidence was presented that Respondent has other signs. Respondent then submitted an application for permit dated July 25, 1977 (Exhibit 6), which was denied by Petitioner because it was within 500 feet of the Barnett Bank sign. The application stated this sign was within 200 feet of an existing sign. Respondent's sign has remained in its present location from 1974 to present. The structure is concrete block, brick and stucco, cost approximately $2,800 to erect, and resembles the building in which Respondent's insurance business is housed. A second application for a sign permit was submitted by Barnett Bank on April 20, 1978, and was approved by Petitioner on April 27, 1978 (Exhibit 5). The only apparent difference between Exhibits 4 and 5 is the location of the sign on Exhibit 4 is 0.24 mile north of U.S. 27 and Exhibit 5 shows this distance as 0.20 mile north of U.S. 27. No evidence was presented regarding the purpose of the second application by Barnett Bank.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's applications to erect a steel monopole which would support a two- sided outdoor advertising sign to be located west of Interstate Highway 95 (I-95), 2,244 feet north of I-95's intersection with Indrio Road, St. Lucie County, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters Petitioner POZ Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (POZ), is a corporation engaged in the business of erecting and maintaining outdoor advertising signs. The principals of POZ are Richard Pozniak and his wife, Barbara. Respondent, Department of Transportation (Department) is a state agency charged with, inter alia, the responsibility to regulate outdoor advertising, under the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code. On February 17, 1997, POZ applied with the Department for permits to erect a monopole sign which would support a two- sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 2,244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road, St. Lucie County, Florida. The Department reviewed the applications, and on February 20, 1997, gave notice to POZ that the applications were denied because the "[s]ite is within 500 feet of a restricted interchange or intersection at grade (S. #14-10.006(1)(b)5, FAC)." POZ filed a timely request for a formal hearing to challenge the Department's decision, and these proceedings duly followed. Matters at issue POZ did not contend, and indeed offered no proof at hearing to demonstrate, that the proposed site was not, as found by the Department, within 500 feet of a restricted interchange or intersection at grade, as proscribed by Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code.2 Rather, as noted in the preliminary statement, POZ contends the Department should be precluded from applying the Rule's spacing provisions as a basis for denial of the requested permits based on a theory of estoppel or a theory of inconsistent application of the Rule's spacing requirements. POZ's estoppel theory To accept POZ's estoppel theory, one must accept, as offered, Mr. Pozniak's version of events which he avers transpired in 1990, when he conducted his outdoor advertising business through AdCon Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (AdCon).3 According to Mr. Pozniak, in 1990 he met with Vana Kinchen, then a sign inspector with the Department, to establish the proper location of a billboard that AdCon proposed to permit. Again, according to Mr. Pozniak, Ms. Kinchen helped him measure the site, and identified the same location at issue in this proceeding (2244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road) as an appropriate placement for a billboard. Following Ms. Kinchen's advice as to location, Mr. Pozniak avers that he applied for permits on behalf of AdCon to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located at the exact same site that is at issue in this proceeding. Those applications, according to Mr. Pozniak, were approved and Department tags issued; however, the sign was not erected within 270 days after the permit issued, as required by Section 479.05(3)(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and the permits became void. Having carefully considered the proof in this case, it must be concluded that Mr. Pozniak's version of the events surrounding AdCon's permitting activities in 1990 is less than credible. Rather, the persuasive proof demonstrates that AdCon's application for permits to erect a billboard at the site at issue in this proceeding were denied and it is most unlikely that Ms. Kinchen ever advised Mr. Pozniak that such site was a proper location for a billboard. Regarding AdCon's permitting activities in 1990, the proof demonstrates that on April 6, 1990, AdCon filed applications (inexplicably dated May 6, 1990) with the Department to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 3050 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road. Consistent with the requirement of Section 479.04(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the applications included a separate statement from the local government that the proposed signs complied with local government requirements. Those applications were approved and, on May 3, 1990, the Department's tag numbers BB-457-35 (for the north facing sign) and BB-458-35 (for the south facing sign) were issued. Subsequently, on November 9, 1990, AdCo filed applications dated November 7, 1990, with the Department to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 2,244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road (the location at issue in this case). Those applications were rejected by the Department on November 15, 1990, because they violated the spacing requirements of Section 479.07(9)(a)1, Florida Statutes, which prohibits the issuance of a permit unless the sign is located at least 1,500 feet from any other sign on the same side of an interstate highway. Notably, as the Department observed at that time, those applications conflicted with the previously approved applications of AdCon for the site located at 3,050 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road, and the permittee still had until January 28, 1991, to erect those signs. The applications were also rejected by the Department because they failed to include a statement from local government as required by Section 479.04(3)(b), Florida Statutes, that the proposed signs complied with local government requirements. Rather, what AdCon submitted was a copy of the local government approval it had secured for the location permitted by the Department on May 3, 1990. That documentation did not, as AdCon knew or should have known, meet the requirements for the new location. Clearly, the Department did not previously permit the site at issue in this case, and it is most unlikely that Ms. Kinchen ever affirmatively advised Mr. Pozniak as to the suitability of the site. In so concluding, Mr. Pozniak's testimony, as well as Petitioner's Exhibit 3 (what purports to be copies of applications, dated November 7, 1990, by AdCon for the site at issue in this proceeding, and purportedly approved by the Department) have been carefully considered. However, when compared with the other proof of record it must be concluded that Petitioner's Exhibit 3 is a fabrication,4 and that Mr. Pozniak's testimony on the subject is not credible or worthy of belief. POZ's theory of inconsistency Mr. Pozniak offered testimony at hearing concerning two outdoor advertising signs at the intersection of I-95 and State Road 60 which he opined did not conform with the Department's spacing requirements and, therefore, represent inconsistent application of the District's rule. The persuasive proof is, however, to the contrary. The first sign, located within 500 feet of the interchange, was in existence when the Department's "ramp rule" regarding spacing requirements became effective and, accordingly, its presence was grandfathered. However, at some time following the enactment of the ramp rule, the owner replaced the sign. At that time, the sign became nonconforming and the Department, as soon as it became aware of the nonconformity, commenced an action to secure the sign's removal. The other sign alluded to by Mr. Pozniak, and identified in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1, is owned by Division Street, Inc., and, contrary to Mr. Pozniak's testimony, that sign complies with the Department's spacing requirements and was properly permitted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the subject applications for outdoor advertising sign permits. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997.
The Issue Whether the respondents or some of them erected and maintained outdoor advertising signs in violation of Rule 14-10.006(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, because more than two advertisements or "messages" were visible to motorists at the same location?
Findings Of Fact Visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards both of the same, concededly lawful size, mounted on a single structure, one on top of the other, 1.75 miles east of State Road 69 in Jackson County. The upper sign advertises a Holiday Inn in Marianna. The bottom sign advertises a Best Western motel (yellow logo against black background) and a McDonald's restaurant (golden arches and white lettering against a red background.) Between the two businesses's names on the bottom sign board appears "11 MI EXIT 21" against a white background. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1716T). Also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted on the same structure, one on top of the other, 2.4 miles east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises the Chipley Motel. Over the words "THIS EXIT," the central portion of the lower sign advertises a Stuckey's store. Flanking this central portion, both ends of the billboard are taken up with advertisements featuring petroleum trademarks (a scallop shell and a star.) Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1714T). Visible to east-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted one on top of the other on the same poles, 1.2 miles west of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises a single business establishment. Underneath, half the sign is devoted to advertising the Washington Motor Inn and half to touting The Outlet Center. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1923T). Visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted on the same structure one on top of the other, 2.7 miles east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advises motorists of the proximity of a motel. The lower sign advertises both a Chevron filling station and a Western Sizzlin restaurant, devoting half the panel to each. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1921T). Also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 is a pair of billboards mounted one over the other at a site 1.3 miles west of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper panel is devoted exclusively to informing the driving public of a nearby motel. The lower billboard, like the lower billboard located 1.7 miles east of State Road 69, advertises a McDonald's restaurant and a Best Western motel, and does so in a similar bipartite manner. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89- 1922T) Finally, also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 is another pair of billboards mounted on top of one another on the same poles, a mile east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises a McDonald's restaurant. Like the lower sign located 2.4 miles east of State Road 77, the lower sign located a mile east advertises not only Stuckey's, but also Shell and Texaco gasolines. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1924T). A handbook DOT employees use depicts three billboards at one location, over the caption: "One of the three faces is illegal if erected after January 28, 1972. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. DOT has not promulgated the handbook as a rule. The evidence did not establish when the billboards in question here were erected. But for Milford C. Truette's perspicacity, these cases might never have arisen. As acting outdoor advertising supervisor for DOT's District II, he told Elsie Myrick, a property and outdoor advertising inspector for DOT, that she "might want to check into ... [the signs involved here] and see that they were in violation." Myrick deposition p. 8. In the subsequently formed opinion of Ms. Myrick, it is unlawful for an outdoor advertising sign to advertise three or more locations at which the same advertiser does business or three or more businesses at the same location, although the proprietor of a single store might lawfully advertise three or more products for sale at the store, and a motel owner is free to advertise a restaurant and a cocktail lounge, at least if they are under the same roof. Respondent's signs are in violation, in Ms. Myrick's view, because, "You're getting across more messages than what you're allowed in a space." Myrick deposition, p. 15. Ms. Myrick thought a sign advertising several stores housed in a single mall would be illegal, but Mr. Truette and Mr. Kissinger, DOT motorist information services coordinator, disagreed. Ms. Myrick rejected the suggestion that common ownership of advertisers would make a difference, but Mr. Kissinger's views on this point were less clear. T.52-3. Mr. Kissinger believes that an outdoor advertising sign can advertise multiple locations at which an enterprise conducts business, or even multiple business entities, if they are all located on the same parcel of real estate.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the notices to show cause issued in each of these consolidated cases. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 89-1714T, 89-1716T, 89-1921T, 89-1922T, 89-1923T, 89-1924 Except for the last sentence in proposed finding of fact No. 4, petitioner's proposed findings of fact 1 through 5 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact were not numbered, but have been treated fully in the recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802
