Findings Of Fact The sign in question is located one mile west of State Road 79 on Interstate 10. Said sign was photographed by the Department of Transportation sign inspector, who identified and introduced two photographs which were received as Exhibits #1 and #2. Said sign does not bear a permit of the type issued pursuant to Section 479.07, Florida Statutes. Said sign is not located within an incorporated city or town. Said sign bears copy which can be read from the traveled way of Interstate 10. Said sign is located 15.5 feet from the right-of-way of Interstate 10. No substantial and competent evidence was introduced regarding the zoning of the area in which the sign is located or the ownership of the sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Transportation take no action regarding the subject sign. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank H. King, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Russell A Cole, Jr., Esquire 206 East Iowa Avenue Bonifay, Florida 32425 Phillip S. Bennet, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John M. McNatt, Jr., Esquire 1500 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 322022
The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of Section 479.07(1), F.S., and Section 479.07(4), F.S., which require an application for a permit to be made and granted and the fees paid each year. Whether a sign which has been standing without a current permit is eligible for a current permit upon payment of the delinquent fees.
Findings Of Fact The following described signs owned by Respondent had no current permit tags: Highway: US 17 Location: .91 miles south of Section 118S(207) Copy: Whispering Pines Highway: US 17 Location: .1 miles north 207 (Section 118S) Copy: Whispering Pines Highway: US 17 Location: South C/L Satsuma (Section 118S) Copy: Whispering Pines The parties stipulated that the subject signs were owned and erected by the Respondent and that there was no application for or fees paid under the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, insofar as paying fees and obtaining current permits.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the subject sign was in violation of Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and Rules 14-10.04(1) and 14-10.07(1) and (2)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Notice as required by the statutes and rules was provided the Respondent. The sign in question bears the name of Melweb, the Respondent in this cause, on its face as required by law. The sign in question was constructed on or about January 13, 1978. It was constructed in the same location as a pre-existing sign which had been destroyed. See Exhibits 3, 4 and 5. This destruction was the result of a windstorm the day before the pictures, Exhibits 3, 4 and 5, were taken. The subject sign is located on US Highway 1 outside an incorporated city or town within the State of Florida, a roadway open to the public at all times relevant to the other testimony received. The sign which was destroyed bore the licensing tag issued by the Department of Transportation in 1974, 442-12, and all fees were current on the sign which was destroyed. This permit is currently attached to the subject sign which is newly constructed. The subject sign was constructed with new poles and new facing, and is slightly smaller than the original sign. The subject sign is located 250 feet from another sign owned by Melweb on US Highway 1. Melweb has not applied for a new license or permit for the subject sign, which would have been required because the original sign which was destroyed did not conform to existing standards of spacing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the subject sign be removed by the Department of Transportation. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 5th day of February, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Tom Yates, Bulletin Manager Melweb Signs, Inc. 300 Fentress Boulevard Post Office Box 9130 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020
The Issue Whether the signs of Respondent are in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, for having added lights and increased the size and for having no permit tag.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation, filed an alleged violation of Chapter 479 and Section 35.13 and 339.30(1), Florida Statutes, and notice to show cause on August 11, 1977, alleging that four signs owned by the Petitioner, Johnson and Johnson, are in violation of Chapter 479, and rules promulgated thereunder for having added lights to the signs without obtaining a permit therefore and for increasing the size of each of the signs. The Petitioner, Johnson and Johnson, Inc., stipulated that the four signs were located in the location as shown on the violation notice, that there are lights on the signs and that there was some enlargement, albeit small. They stand along Interstate-10, and lights were added much later than the original signs were permitted and erected. Sign number one was enlarged from 18' x 12' as permitted to 26' x 16'. Sign number two was enlarged from 18' x 12' as permitted to 23' x 16'. Sign number three was enlarged from 18' x 12' as permitted to 24' x 16'. Sign number four was enlarged from 18' x 12' as permitted to 25' x 16'. Pictures of the signs were admitted into evidence and evidence was submitted that the additions were made by "scabes" nailed up on the poles. Said additions were of newer timber than the original signs. The applications requested a permit for category 12 through 20 and the applications did not include a request for a lighted sign. No lighting was requested by checking the application to denote lighting and the dimensions in feet on each sign as requested was 18' height and 12' width. Each permit fee was $4.00. The signs of Petitioner were erected prior to 1971, and inasmuch as they do not conform to the current regulations or the regulations promulgated and effective on December 8, 1971, the signs were grandfathered in and are "nonconforming" signs, not subject to immediate removal under Section 479.23 and Rule 14-10.07, but are subject to Section 479.24 as long as they are maintained in substantially the same manner as when they became nonconforming.
Recommendation Remove subject signs if the enlargement and the lights have not been removed within 10 days after entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin B. Browning, Esquire Browning & Hardee Post Office Box 652 Madison, Florida 32340 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
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. /
The Issue Whether an application for an outdoor advertising permit for a sign in Santa Rosa County should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation is the state agency responsible for the regulation of outdoor advertising signs that are located on all federal-aid primary highways. U.S. Highway 90 (U.S. 90) is a federal-aid primary highway. A permit is required prior to erecting an outdoor advertising sign on all federal-aid primary highways. Southeast- SD, LLC (Southeast) filed an application for an outdoor advertising permit, application # 57549/57550 (the application) on June 29, 2009. Southeast's proposed sign structure meets the size and height requirements of section 479.07. The parcel was commercially zoned in accordance with the provisions of section 479.11, Florida Statutes. Southeast's application site is located on U.S. 90 at milepost 3.118, approximately 550 feet east of the centerline of Woodbine Road. The Department denied Southeast's application and issued a Notice of Denied Outdoor Application (initial denial) on July 29, 2009. The reason stated in the initial denial was: Sign does not meet spacing requirements (1500' for interstates, 1000' for FAP). [s. 479.07(9)(a),1.,& 2. F.S.] In conflict with permitted sign(s), tag#(s): CC479. Held by: Bill Salter Advertising, Inc. Bill Salter Advertising, Inc. (Salter's) sign with tag CC479 was located on U.S. 90 less than 500 feet from the application site. Permit CC479 was the subject of a Department revocation proceeding.2/ On March 8, 2010, the Department issued a Clerk's Order of Dismissal on the challenge to the revocation of CC479. Thus, the revocation of the conflicting sign, CC479, was final on March 8, 2010. On August 16, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Notice of Denied Application (Amended Notice). In the Amended Notice, the Department gave a different reason for the denial. The reason given in the Amended Denial concerned a different Salter tag: Sign does not meet spacing requirements (1500' for interstates, 1000' for EAP). [s. 470.07(9)(a),1., & 2. FS] In conflict with permitted sign(s): CF793. Held by: Bill Salter Advertising, Inc." CF793 was originally permitted in 1978. At that time, an application for a sign permit was reviewed and notated by the Department, and became the actual permit. The application for CF793 contains information that is type-written on the application form, presumably by the applicant, Salter. In the portion of the application form stating "DOT DESCRIPTION OF SIGN LOCATION (DOT USE ONLY)" the following is hand-written: "Sect. 59 W- 39.95 Miles W-SR 85." Most of the application/permit was filled out by the applicant, and part of it was filled out by the Department. In 1996, the Florida Legislature amended section 479.02, directing the Department to inventory and determine the location of all signs on the state, interstate, and federal-aid primary highway systems. The Department conducted the inventory and, upon completion, sent the database information to each sign owner, giving each owner an opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the results. Salter did not file such a challenge regarding CF793. As of July 30, 2009 (the date of the initial denial), tag CF793 was shown at milepost 13.205 on U.S. 90, in a location approximately 13 miles away from the application site in the Department's database created pursuant to section 479.02(8). Tag CF793 was physically located 13 miles away from its originally permitted location. The Department acknowledges that tag CF793 was not valid in its location 13 miles away from its current location, where it was located from at least 1998 to 2010. The database reflected milepost 13.205 as the location for CF793 from 1998 until 2010. In 2004, the Department sent Salter a Notice of Non- Compliance demanding that Salter post tag CF793 at milepost 13.205. In October 2009, the Department received a letter from Salter regarding moving CF793 to the location specified in the 1978 permit. At this point, the Department investigated the original application and discovered a "huge discrepancy" between the database location and the permit location in the Department's files. The Department has no documentation regarding how tag CF793 came to be located at milepost 13.205 since the 1998 inventory. The Department decided that its database was incorrect and that it needed to be corrected. On February 1, 2010, the Department changed its database to reflect the location for CF793 as milepost 2.993 on U.S. 90. Salter posted the tag for CF793 at its current location sometime after March 22, 2010 and prior to May 3, 2010. Once Salter placed the tag for CF793, the database was changed again to reflect the physical tag location at milepost 2.950 on U.S. 90, the "current location." The Department hired Cardno TBE, an engineering firm, to conduct field work. An inspector performed field measurements on May 3, 2010, using the wheel and laser methods for field measurement. The inspector identified the stake that was in the ground on Southeast's proposed sign site. He measured along the edge of the pavement on U.S. 90 from the location marked by Southeast to the new location of Salter's CF793 tag. The inspector determined that the distance between the proposed site and the nearest permitted sign, CF793, is 890 feet. Based upon these findings, the Department then determined that Southeast's proposed sign did not meet the 1000- foot spacing requirement. By letter dated May 27, 2010, the Department notified Salter that the location of CF793 was "nonconforming" and that pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007, a completed sign must be erected within 270 days or the permit would be revoked. No sign has been built, and the permit has not been revoked. Moreover, it appears that a sign will never be built, as the Department is in possession of correspondence from Santa Rosa County to Salter indicating that a sign cannot be constructed at the current location of tag CF793 due to conflict with several local ordinances. Also on May 27, 2010, the Department sent a letter to Southeast stating that CF793 "now presents a spacing conflict" with Southeast's application location. The letter further states that the Department had advised Salter that a completed sign must be erected within 270 days and that if no sign is erected within that time frame, the permit would be revoked. On August 16, 2010, three months later, the Department amended its denial as set forth above in paragraph 8. Just prior to the hearing, the Department again sent the inspector to conduct another field measurement. This time, the inspector relied upon information regarding the location of the sign from the original application/permit that was provided by the applicant (Salter) in 1978. That is, the inspector measured from a location described by the applicant in the original permit application, then measured the distance from the location to Southeast's proposed site, and determined the distance to be 884 feet. In making these measurements, the inspector assumed that the nearest intersection in 1978 was in the same location as today, that the original measurer started the measurement from the centerline of that intersection, and that the distance from the nearest intersection indicated by Salter on the original application/permit was measured with the same accuracy as a hand-wheel or laser.3/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order approving Southeast's sign permit application. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Barbara J. Staros Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 2011.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued permit number AM146-10 to the Respondent, Melweb Signs, Inc., on May 2, 1984. This permit authorized the erection of an outdoor advertising sign on I-95 approximately 4,000 feet south of Orange Avenue in St. Lucie County. A sign was erected pursuant to this permit. The Respondent's application for the subject permit represented that the sign site applied for was in an area that was zoned commercial or industrial. The Respondent's manager had inquired of county representatives what the zoning was at the sign site, and was informed that the area was zoned commercial. The Respondent's manager also had a map that showed the area to be zoned commercial or industrial, but this map was not a zoning map. It had been issued by a local canal district. When the Respondent's application was filed, the Department's inspector had been shown the map the Respondent's manager had, and when the inspector inquired of the county what the zoning was, she was informed that the area was zoned commercial or industrial. In reliance on the Respondent's map and on the information received from the county, as well as on the Respondent's application, the permit was approved. The Respondent had certified on its application that the sign to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Subsequently, the correct zoning for the subject site was brought to the attention of the Department's inspector. The Respondent agrees that the area is actually zoned agricultural (A-I) not commercial or industrial. Thus, the Department issued its notice of intent to revoke the Respondent's permit on April 11, 1985.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit number AM146-10 held by the Respondent, Melweb Signs, Inc., be revoked, and that the sign erected by the Respondent on I-95 approximately 4,000 feet south of Orange Avenue in St. Lucie County, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 10th day of December, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings 1985. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 10th day of December, APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-1746T Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Nevertheless, none of the Respondent's proposed findings address the provisions of Section 479.08, Florida Statutes, authorizing permit revocation when "the permittee has violated any of the provisions of this chapter." COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire P. O. Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
