Findings Of Fact Following a routine inspection if outdoor advertising signs along SR 80 in Lee County numerous signs, including the sign here involved, were cited for not having permits. Upon receipt of the notice of violations Petitioner applied for permits for the signs owned by him that were found without permits. Some of these permits were granted; however, the application for the sign on SR 80 one mile west of I-75 was denied. The site on which this sign is located is zoned agricultural. Petitioner purchased five signs in 1977 from Martel Signs. All of these signs advertise Petitioner's honey factory which is open for visits by tourists to whom merchandise is sold. The factory is located a sufficient distance from SR 80 that it cannot be seen from SR 80 and the signs are needed by petitioner to attract and direct customers to his place of business. In an affidavit from the owner of the property on which the sign is located, submitted by Petitioner subsequent to the hearing, it is stated that a sign, presumably in the same location as Petitioner's sign, was erected on or before 1968. Upon purchasing the signs from Martel petitioner obtained permits from Lee County (Exhibit 1) but was unaware of, and made no effort to comply with, the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, requiring annual permits from DOT for all outdoor advertising signs. Respondent's records do not show the sign in question was ever permitted; however, Respondent's records are very incomplete in this regard for the period prior to 1975.
The Issue Whether the Respondent erected and maintained outdoor advertising signs without a proper permit and in violation of the set-back laws of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent erected an outdoor advertising sign approximately one (1) mile east of State Road 79 on the north side of Interstate 10 right-of-way. The copy on the face of the sign read: "Rich's Truck Stop, Restaurant, Travel Park, CB Radio Shop, Texaco, This Exit." The distance from the sign to the nearest edge of the pavement of I-10 was approximately two hundred thirty-one (231) feet. The Respondent, Mr. Rich, speaking for the partnership Rich Oil Company admitted that the sign was located as stated in the violation notice. The sign was located in a rural area not zoned by a city or by a county. Respondent erected a second sign located approximately .5 of a mile west of Florida Secondary 181 on the north side of I-10 right-of-way. The sign is painted on the side of a trailer. The size of the sign is nine (9) feet high and forty (40) feet long. The copy states: "Rich's Truck Stop, Exit Highway 79, Marker 111, Open 24 Hours, Restaurant, Camping, Texaco." The trailer with the sign on it is located approximately one hundred three (103) feet from the nearest edge of the pavement of I-10. The trailer with the sign painted on it is standing in a pasture in a rural unzoned area. The Respondent Mr. Rich agreed as to the approximate location of the subject sign. No application for permit was made by the Respondent for either of the two subject signs. Respondent received a Violation Notice from Petitioner stating the signs were in violation of the set-back regulations and were in violation of the statute requiring a state permit. Contrary to the contentions of Respondent, the Hearing Officer finds that both of the signs which are the subject of this hearing and herein described are in fact "signs." The second described sign painted on the side of a trailer is a "sign" within the standard definition "a lettered board or other display used to identify or advertise a place of business," Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Copyright 1974 by G. and C. Merriam Company.
Recommendation Remove both of the subject signs within ten (10) days of the issuance of the Final Order unless said signs have been previously removed by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 1st 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: George L. Waas, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Department of Transportation Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Russell A. Cole, Jr., Esquire 123 North Oklahoma Street Bonifay, Florida 32425 Mr. Glen E. Rich Rich Oil Company U.S. 90 West Bonifay, Florida 32425 Mr. J. E. Jordan District Sign Coordinator Post Office Box 607 Chipley, Florida 32428
Findings Of Fact Respondent maintains an outdoor advertising structure on the I-95 southbound lane facing north, 13.94 miles north of the Brevard-Volusia County line. Sometime between August 6, 1975 and January 12, 1976, the face of this advertising structure was raised six to eight feet in height. This was done by extensions being placed on the original poles upon which the structure sits. The structure retained its same face size and lighting. The face of this structure was raised at the request of Respondent's client in order to retain that client's business. No evidence was presented to show when this sign was originally erected. No evidence was presented by Petitioner, Department of Transportation, which would establish that the subject sign is or is not located at a "commercial or industrial zone" or an "unzoned commercial or industrial area" as those terms are defined in Section 479.01, Florida Statutes. The subject sign is located approximately 15 feet outside the right-of-way of I-95.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 18, 1981, the Department issued permit numbers AE654-10 and AE655-10 to the Respondent, Bill Salter Advertising, Inc., authorizing the erection of a sign on the north side of I-10, 1.2 miles west of U.S. 29 in Escambia County, Florida. Prior to the issuance of the permits in 1981, the site was field inspected and approved by a Department inspector. The Respondent's representative who submitted the permit applications designated on these applications that the sign location was in an unzoned area within 800 feet of a business. This representative also certified on the applications that the sign to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Attached to these applications was a sketch prepared by the Respondent depicting the proposed sign location, and designating the business that was within 800 feet of this location to be a junkyard. This junkyard as it was characterized on the sketch accompanying the Respondent's applications was a business activity that was in operation in 1981. It was within 660 feet of the right-of-way of I-10, and the sign site proposed by the Respondent was within 800 feet of the business activities. The Department's outdoor advertising inspector who approved the applications found the site where the business was located, as well as the activities being conducted there, to have been visible from the main-traveled way of I-10 in 1981. The Respondent and one of its representatives, who viewed the site in 1981, also found that the business activities were visible from I-10 in 1981. Two Department witnesses who viewed this location in 1985 testified that they could not see either the business or the business activities from the main-traveled way of I- However, neither of these Department representatives testified that they viewed the site in 1981, and their testimony has thus been rejected as less persuasive than the testimony of those who viewed the site in 1981. The more substantial competent evidence in this record supports a finding of fact that the business activities were visible from the main-traveled way of I-10 in 1981 when the applications were submitted and approved, and it is so found. Although the sketch accompanying the Respondent's applications designated the business that was in proximity to the proposed sign location as a junkyard, the evidence is inconclusive relative to what the nature of the business activities actually were at this site. The Department contends that the sign was permitted solely on the basis of the junkyard depicted on the Respondent's sketch, but the inspector who approved the permits testified that there may have been something else within 800 feet of the sign site other than the junkyard. He was tentative and indefinite when asked if his approval of the permits was based on anything other than what the sketch depicted. There was "a bunch of automobiles" on the business grounds in 1981 according to the Department inspector who visited the site in 1981. The Respondent's representative who submitted the applications and who prepared the sketch saw some tools, old cars and parts on the site. He called it a junkyard, but it could have been an auto parts business. Another Respondent witness characterized the business being conducted there as an auto repair business, and he has seen autos being repaired there. He has also seen a customer making payment for a repaired vehicle. He has seen the occupational license of the business operator, and it shows a retail business being conducted. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of fact that a junkyard was being operated in the area where the Respondent's sign was permitted. In addition, Section 339.241(3), Florida Statutes, requires that junkyards located within 1,000 feet of interstate highways be screened from view from the highway. The business being conducted at the site where the subject sign was permitted is not so screened now, and was not screened in 1981. In summary, the weight of the evidence detailed above supports a finding that the business activity which the Respondent indicated on its applications qualified the proposed sign site as an unzoned commercial area, was within 660 feet of the Interstate and within 800 feet of the proposed sign site, and that the business activities were visible from the main-traveled way of I-10 in 1981. The weight of the evidence further supports a finding that in 1981 the business being conducted at this site was not a junkyard. Prior to February of 1985, the site was inspected by the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator who determined that the permits had been issued in error because he could see no visible commercial activity within 800 feet of the sign. He testified that a junkyard would not qualify a site as an unzoned commercial area because of the requirement in Section 339.241(3), Florida Statutes, that a junkyard be screened from view from the interstate. However, there is no evidence that this witness viewed the area in 1981. Thus, his testimony has less persuasive force than that of the Department inspector who viewed the site in 1981, and who could see the commercial activity from I-10. The Right-of-Way Administrator also testified that the requirement that a junkyard be screened from the interstate is part of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. However, this requirement is not a part of the Florida Outdoor Advertising Act, Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Although the Respondent certified on the applications that the sign to be erected would meet all the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, the Respondent did not certify that the proposed sign would meet the requirements of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, or that it would meet the requirements of any of the other statutes of Florida. This is not required. In February of 1985, the Department issued a Notice of Violation advising the Respondent that the subject permits were being revoked because the sign had not been erected in a zoned or unzoned commercial area due to the lack of any business activity that was visible from the roadway.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department's violation notice seeking revocation of the Respondent's permits and removal of the Respondent's sign on the north side of I-10, 1.2 miles west of U.S. 29 in Escambia County, Florida, be dismissed, and that permit numbers AE654-10 and AE655-10 remain in effect. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 21st day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 21st day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. Bill Salter, President Bill Salter Advertising, Inc. Post Office Box 422 Milton, Florida 32570 Mark J. Proctor, Esquire Post Office Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32031
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc., was issued permits numbered AI625-10 and AI626-10 on or about February 15, 1983. These permits were for the erection of signs on the north side of I-10, approximately .65 mile west of SR 297, in Escambia County, Florida. They were issued because of the proximity of a welding business noted on a sketch attached to the applications submitted by the Respondent. The Respondent submitted the applications and the attached sketch for these permits, and designated on the applications that the sign location would be in an unzoned area within 800 feet of a business. The sketch shows what is designated as a welding business to be within 800 feet of the proposed sign location. On each of these applications the Respondent certified that the signs would meet all requirements of Chapter 479 of the Florida Statutes. Prior to the issuance of these permits, the subject site was inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, who approved the applications because of the existence of what was believed to be a welding shop nearby the proposed sign location. This inspector was looking for a welding shop because one was indicated to be there by the sketch attached to the applications. What she saw was some welding being done on the property where the welding business was shown on the sketch to be. This could be seen from the interstate. Apparently because the inspector expected to find a welding business near the proposed sign site as represented on the Respondent's applications, it was concluded that such a business existed there, and the applications were approved. However, the occupant of the subject property has lived there all his life, and has never operated a welding business. He has only done welding on this site once, when he welded a bumper onto a truck. This took ten to fifteen minutes to complete. The photographs which were received in evidence show his property, and the area depicted was substantially the same in 1983 as when the photos were taken. The general appearance of this area is residential or rural in nature, and not commercial. It is visible to traffic on I-10. The adjacent property is leased by Pensacola Outdoor Advertising. This property has a building on it which bears a small sign reading "Pensacola Outdoor Adv." and the telephone number. This building was leased by Pensacola Outdoor Advertising in February of 1984, and was not used for any business purpose when the permit applications were submitted. This property is also visible from I-10. However, when the Respondent applied for the subject permits there was no business activity being conducted within 800 feet of the proposed sign location. Therefore, the Department's inspector made a mistake in approving the Respondent's applications for this site. In May of 1984 the Department issued its violation letter advising the Respondent that the subject sign permits were being revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permits numbered AI625-10 and AI626-10 held by the Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc,, authorizing signs on the north side of I-10, approximately .65 mile west of SR 297 in Escambia County, Florida, be revoked, and any signs erected pursuant to these permits be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 31st day of October, 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 31st day of October, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-4175T Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted Rejected. Accepted. Rejected, as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected, as contrary to the weight of the evidence, except for the grant of field approval of the permits which is accepted. Accepted, except for cost of erection of the sign which is rejected as irrelevant. Rejected, as irrelevant. Rejected, as irrelevant. Rejected, as contrary to the weight of the evidence, except for visibility which is accepted. Rejected, as irrelevant. Rejected, as contrary to the weight of the evidence, except for visibility which is accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Hayden Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mark J. Proctor, Esquire P. O. Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Honorable Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 The Steakery and the Sugarloaf Leisure Club are businesses in Summerland Key, Monroe County, Florida, that are owned by William A. Hare. For the past four years, Mr. Hare has, on behalf of his respective businesses, leased two outdoor advertising signs that are located on the same support structure with one sign being directly above the other. On one sign there appears an advertisement for The Steakery while on the other there appears an advertisement for the Sugarloaf Leisure Club. These two signs face are located in Monroe County, Florida, on the northbound side of U.S. 1, a federal-aid primary highway. The support structure for the signs is approximately 10 feet from the highway. No permit has been issued by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) for either sign. The signs are located in a part of Monroe County which is zoned "Native Area". This area is not zoned commercial or industrial and is not an unzoned commercial or industrial area. The signs are not located on the business premises of the sign owner. The signs were inspected by the DOT's Outdoor Advertising Inspector and found to have no state sign permits attached them. On October 5, 1989, DOT caused to be filed against the two signs notices that neither sign had the permit required by law and that the zoning for the location of the signs did not permit outdoor advertising signs. Respondents have not contested the method by which the notices were posted. Mr. Hare, on behalf of his businesses, filed a timely demand for formal hearing following his receipt of the notices of violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order which finds that permits required by law have not been issued for the subject signs, that the signs are in a location that is ineligible for permitting because of its zoning, and which orders the immediate removal of the subject signs. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 f Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES 89-6103T AND 89-61O4T The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Department of Transportation: 1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. 2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. 3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. 4. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. 5. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Rivers Buford, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mr. William Hare Owner, The Steakery Owner, Sugarloaf Leisure Club Post Office Box 723 Summerland Key, Florida 33042 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bulding 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact On September 1, 1981, the Department received in its district office in Chipley, Florida, the Respondent's application for a permit to erect an outdoor advertising sign adjacent to I-10, approximately 1.62 miles east of SR 69S in Jackson County, Florida. This permit application stated that the location requested was in a commercial or industrial area within 800 feet of a business. The Department's outdoor advertising inspector visited the site after having reviewed the Respondent's application and being told by Harry Fuqua that he would find a business called Branch's Garage there. He found a house with a tin farm-type building like a barn in the back. Inside this tin barn were some tools and welding equipment. There was a sign on the door stating the business hours, and another sign on the side of this tin building stating the name Branch's Garage. None of this was visible from I-10, however; all that could be seen from the interstate was the roof of the residence and part of the tin barn; there was no indication to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity was being conducted at this location. The inspector's supervisor and the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator both visited the site prior to approval of the subject permit. The supervisor had also been told that he would find a business known as Branch's Garage there, and he was looking for it. At the site he observed what appeared to be a garage and some work being done. This could not be seen from I-10, and from the interstate he could not see anything that would indicate to traffic that a garage was at this location. The Respondent's representative, Harry Fuqua, admits that no business activity was visible from I-10, and that there was nothing to indicate to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity was being conducted at this location. The site where Branch's Garage is located cannot be reached from I-10 directly. It would have to be approached from one of the side roads after traffic had exited the interstate. Based upon his inspection of the site, coupled with the Respondent's representation that a business called Branch's Garage existed there, the inspector approved the Respondent's application for a sign permit. Thereafter, both the supervisor and the Right-of-Way Administrator also approved the application. The permit was issued on or about September 8, 1981, because of the proximity of the proposed site to the nearby business known as Branch's Garage which had been observed by the inspector, his supervisor, and the Right- of-Way Administrator. Subsequently, after the permit had been issued, the Respondent erected its sign which is the subject of this proceeding. In late 1984 and early 1985 there was no business activity at the subject site and there continues to be nothing there to indicate to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity exists at this location. The Respondent through its agent Harry Fuqua, submitted the application for the subject permit, and designated thereon that the proposed location was in an unzoned commercial area within 800 feet of a business. This application also certified that the sign to be erected met all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit number AF191-10 held by Fuqua & Davis, Inc., be revoked, and the sign which was erected pursuant to this permit be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 11th day of July, 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 11th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine C. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 James J. Richardson, Esquire P. O. Box 12669 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2669 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Mr. Claude R. Finley is the sole owner of Pensacola Outdoor Advertising. He purchased property on April 17, 1984, having a sign structure with four faces located thereon. This sign structure was owned by the Lamar Company. The Department had issued for permits to the Lamar Company for the four faces of this sign. Mr. Finley was aware that this sign was permitted by the Department to Lamar when he purchased this property. Mr. Finley applied for sign permits at this approximate location by application dated April 15, 1984. The Department denied the application because of sign permit numbers AD809-8, A15824-10, A1585-10 and 6821-10 held by the Lamar Company, and because no preliminary approval letter from Escambia County had been obtained. A second application for permits was sent to the Department on June 12, 1984, which was also returned unapproved by letter dated June 18, 1984, because of the existing permits that had been issued to Lamar. Mr. Finley attempted on numerous occasions to work out a lease with Lamar for the subject location, but he was not successful. By letter dated June 12, 1984, Mr. Finley notified the Lamar Company that it had 15 days to remove the sign structure from his property. Mr. Hollis Wood, General Manager of the Lamar Company, responded by letter dated June 22, 1984, that he would remove the sign structure on June 30, and cancel its permit tags after the expiration of its lease for the sign site. Mr. Finley rode by the location on I-10, on June 30th, about 3:00 p.m. He did not stop, but he observed no sign there. He could tell by the bent trees that some work had been done in the area. The previous time Mr. Finley had been by the site, earlier in the week, the sign was standing. By letter dated June 13, 1924, Mr. Finley advised the Department that he was the owner of the property where the Lamar Company held permits, and he advised he was cancelling the permits for signs on his property. By letter dated June 19, 1984, the Department informed the Lamar Company that it had received information that the Lamar Company no longer had the permission of the property owner to maintain the sign at the location where the permits were issued, and that the permits would be invalidated by the Department unless evidence was provided to refute the information, or a hearing requested within 30 days to challenge this cancellation action. Mr. Wood, by letter dated June 29, 1984, requested an administrative hearing. Later Charles W. Lamar III, by letter dated July 20, 1984, withdrew the request for an administrative hearing, advising that the sign structure in question had been removed, and that a cancellation affidavit and the permit tags were being returned to the Department. The first application for sign permits on the south side of I-10, 2.2 miles east of SR 297, for signs facing east and west, submitted by the Petitioner, was denied because of the four existing permits held by the Lamar Company at this location, and because no preliminary approval from Escambia County for erecting billboards that had been obtained. The county's preliminary approval is part of the application process for locations in Escambia County. The Lamar Company's sign permits remained outstanding until after July 1, 1984, when the new spacing requirements of the 1984 amendment to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, became effective. There are two permitted sign locations approximately 1,000 feet to the east and to the west of the subject site. These permits are held by Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising. The Petitioner's second permit application was denied because the permits held by the Lamar Company were not cancelled until July when the new spacing law became effective requiring 1,500 feet between signs on I-10, resulting in a spacing conflict with the two Bill Slater locations approximately 1,000 feet to the east and west of the proposed site. The Department's procedure for revoking permits allows a party holding a permit to cancel it by submitting an affidavit and returning the tags, stating the reason for cancellation in the affidavit. Until permits are revoked or cancelled by the Department, they remain valid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order finding that the application of Pensacola Outdoor Advertising for sign permits at a location on the south side of I-10, 2.2 miles east of S.R. 297, facing east and west, in Escambia County, Florida, be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of December, 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 28th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald Holley, Esquire Post Office Box 268 Chipley, Florida 32428 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
