The Issue Whether the subject outdoor advertising signs are illegal because they were erected without state permits from Petitioner. Whether the subject signs should be removed. Whether Petitioner is equitably estopped to assert that the signs are illegal and should be removed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to Interstate 95 on Northwest 6th Court, which is between Northwest 75th Street and Northwest 76th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. For ease of reference, this sign will be referred to as the Interstate 95 sign. The Interstate 95 sign has two facings, each of which is visible from Interstate 95. The Interstate 95 sign is located within 147 feet of the right-of-way of Interstate 95. Respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to Interstate 395 at the corner of Northwest 14th Street and Northwest 1st Court, Miami, Dade County, Florida. For ease of reference, this sign will be referred to as the Interstate 395 sign. The Interstate 395 sign has two facings, each of which is visible from Interstate 395. The Interstate 395 sign is located within 240 feet of the right- of-way of Interstate 395. Eugene A. (Andy) Hancock, Jr., is the President of the corporate Respondent and, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, controlled the activities of Respondent. Mr. Hancock caused the corporate Respondent to lease the respective properties on which the subject signs are located in November 1998. He thereafter caused the corporate Respondent to erect the two double-faced signs at issue in this proceeding. The subject signs were constructed during September and October 1999. Each sign was constructed without a state permit from Petitioner. Each sign is within the permitting jurisdiction of Petitioner. Mr. Hancock testified that his company did not apply for permits from Petitioner because of a conversation he had with Bernard Davis, a former outdoor advertising administrator for Petitioner. Mr. Hancock testified that Mr. Davis represented to him that his company would not need permits from Petitioner if it had permits from the City of Miami. This testimony is rejected. 3/ Respondent has applied for state sign permits for the subject signs. Permits for these signs have not been issued because of their proximity to existing, permitted signs. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that the subject signs are illegal and must be removed pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 2001.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 16, 1982, the Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc., filed applications for two permits to erect an outdoor advertising sign in Escambia County, Florida on the west side of I-110, .95 mile north of SR 296. This sign would have one face for northbound traffic and one face for southbound traffic, and would be located outside the city limits of Pensacola. These applications were field inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, and they were approved by the Department's district supervisor in Chipley. On or about September 20, 1982, the Department issued permits for the requested location to the Respondent. On these applications the Respondent designated that the proposed sign location was in an unzoned commercial area within 800 feet of a business. These applications also certified that the sign to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. A sketch attached to the applications showed that the proposed sign location would be adjacent to a business that was designated as Coleman Roofing. When the field inspector visited the site she was aware that an antique business was supposed to be located in the area because it was designated on another outdoor advertising company's application as a business that qualified another sign location as unzoned commercial. This inspector found Hazel's Antiques because there was a sign which said "antiques" and a nearby shed which was visible from the interstate. In continuing to look for Coleman Roofing, she walked up the embankment between I-110 and the subject location until she could see what she determined to be some roofing material stored at one end of the property. She approved the Respondent's applications more on the proximity of the antique business than on the basis of Coleman Roofing. The owner of the property where the antique business was supposed to be is not in the antique business and has never conducted any business activities from this property. She lives there in a mobile home, and no one else has ever been in business on her property. Another outdoor advertising company obtained her permission to place a sign on her property saying "antiques", and there are some antiques in her mother's home, but these are not for sale. A representative from this sign company also took out a county occupational license in the name of this property owner, but she did not apply for this license. The shed seen by the Department's inspector is used for cookouts, and while there is some old furniture outside, it is junk waiting to be carried away. The owner of the property where Coleman Roofing was supposed to be is a self-employed roofer operating out of a trailer in which he lives. He has also worked from his home as a carpenter. He has no business telephone in his home, only a residential listing, and he only does bookkeeping from the dining room of his home. Outside there is a shed where he has kept his boat and an outbuilding with junk and old furniture in it. When he is working on roofing jobs he orders roofing material delivered to the job site. His property is in a residential area, and any leftover roofing material that may be there is awaiting a trip to the dump. As viewed from I-110, there is no indication that any commercial activity is being conducted at the subject location. The nature of the area within 660 feet of the interstate right of-way and within 800 feet of the Respondent's sign is residential. Sometime prior to November of 1984, the site was inspected by the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator who determined that the permits had been issued in error because of the absence of visible commercial activity within 800 feet of the signs. As a result, the Department issued its notice of violation advising the Respondent that the subject sign permits were being revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit numbers AH820-10 and AH821-10, held by the Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc., authorizing a sign on the west side of I-110, .95 mile north of SR 295, in Escambia County, Florida, be revoked, and the subject sign removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 12th day of September, 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 12th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mark J. Proctor, Esquire P. O. Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Jefferson County has established comprehensive zoning for the county pursuant to its Development Code which became effective on April 1, 1983. This code provides a system of land use regulation which includes comprehensive zoning of commercial uses by a category called "Site Particularly Suited for Economic Activity." The commercial zone allows for one of three types of employment centers, namely, Type 1-5, Type 6-20, and Type 21, which are commercial enterprises or firms distinguished by the number of employees in a building or group of buildings at a particular location. Type 6-20 and Type 21 employment centers are only allowed in a "Site Particularly Suited for Economic Activity." Section 1 of Article 25 of this code allows outdoor advertising visible from an arterial highway to be located in one of the "Sites Particularly Suited for Economic Activity" as defined in Article 26. Section 2 of Article 26 of the code states that Economic Activity refers to Type 6-20 and Type 21 employment centers. The Petitioner, by its application for outdoor advertising permits, seeks to erect signs on the south side of I-10, .6 mile west of State Road 59 in Jefferson County, facing east and west. This site is in a Type 1-5 employment center, not a Type 6-20 or a Type 21 employment center, as required by Article 26 of the code. This site is also within 660 feet of the right-of-way of Interstate 10. It is without commercial activity, and is vacant land at the present time. On May 7, 1984, the Petitioner made an application to the Jefferson County Planning Commission for a change of land use, or variance, and listed as its purpose "Outdoor Advertising." On July 12, 1984, the Jefferson County Planning Commission approved the variance as applied for on the property which is the subject of this proceeding. Thereafter, on September 11, 1984, the Petitioner applied with the Department of Transportation for outdoor advertising permits at the subject location. This application was denied by the Department on September 13, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Seminole Inns, Inc., for permits to erect outdoor advertising signs on the south side of Interstate 10, .6 mile west of State Road 59 in Jefferson County, Florida, facing east and west, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 22nd day of March, 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 22nd day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell C. Madigan, Esquire David D. Eastman, Esquire P. O. Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the sign of Petitioner is in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and the outdoor advertising rules promulgated thereunder for having no permit from the Respondent and for being erected in a nonconforming area.
Findings Of Fact Sometime prior to September 6, 1977, in the year 1977, Petitioner erected three outdoor advertising signs less than 30 feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way of Interstate-10 in rural areas advertising pecans at a Shell station or restaurant at the next exit. One sign was located 03.53 miles East of State Road 53. One was erected 09.98 miles West of State Road 14 and one was located 05.17 miles West of State Road 14. The Respondent, Department of Transportation, served a violation notice on Petitioner dated September 6, 1977, alleging that Petitioner's signs were in violation of Section 479.07(1) and Rule 14-10.04(1), inasmuch as no application had been made or permit granted for the erection of the signs. The violation notice also alleged that the Petitioner was in violation of Section 479.11(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.05(1)(a) and (b), as being in a nonconforming area. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing stipulating as to the location of the signs in the rural areas along Interstate Highway 10. Petitioner contends: that the subject signs are within the exception of Section 479.16(2) and are excepted from all of the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Respondent contends: that the Petitioner is in fact an outdoor advertiser and does not own or lease the farms themselves and therefore does not come within the exception provided for farmers to market the produce of their farms. Mr. J. B. Davis, the President of J. B. Davis, Inc., operates travel shops and is a Shell Oil Jobber. He operates travel shops on Interstate-75 and Interstate-10 and sells various produce at these shops including pecans and other products at the Shell station. He has an agreement with three property owners along Interstate-10 to buy their pecans. The agreements extend to allowing the Petitioner to buy the pecans at the prevailing market price in Madison, Florida; the right to cultivate the trees themselves and right of access over the owner's property. Two of the agreements have been reduced to writing and were introduced into evidence. The sign erected by the Petitioner along Interstate-10 approximately 4 miles from State Road 53 was fallen down in disrepair at the date of the hearing. The sign advertised "This Exit Pecans Shell Station". It was erected on property owned by Mr. Jerry Wood and is in an open field Petitioner buys pecans from Mr. Wood. The sign located approximately 10 miles from State Road 14 is on property located by Mrs. Mattie Cruce. The sign advertises "This Exit Pecans at Shell Restaurant". It is erected in a field with scrub trees growing toward the back. Petitioner buys pecans from Mrs. Cruce to sell at the Shell station. The third sign erected by Petitioner is on property owned by Mr. John Cone. The sign is approximately 5 miles from State Road 14 along Interstate-10. It advertises "Pecans, 5 Miles at Shell Restaurant". Petitioner buys pecans from Mr. Cone. The two lease agreements with the owners of the property on two of the signs was drawn up in the week immediately prior to the date of this hearing on the violation notices. Previously there was an oral agreement with all three owners of the property that the Petitioner would buy the pecans from the owners to sell at the Shell station operated by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Remove the signs of Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 29 day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin B. Browning, Jr., Esquire Browning & Hardee Post Office Drawer 652 Madison, Florida 32340 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation The Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether the sign of Petitioner, White Advertising International, should be removed by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, for violation of Section 479.07(1) and Section 479.11(2), Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
Findings Of Fact A notice of violation was sent by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, to the Petitioner, White Advertising International, on March 21, 1977, citing an outdoor advertising sign owned by the Petitioner located 1.97 miles west of U.S. #1, State Road 50 E/B with copy "Real Estate Service." The violation noted that the sign violated Section 479.071(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14ER77-09 (now Rule 14-10.04) and Section 479.11(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14ER77-10, 11 (now Rule 14-10.05 and 14-10.06). There is no dispute as to the location or copy or ownership of the subject sign. It is not in a zoned business, commercial or industrial area and is outside an urban area. The sign does not conform to the current setback requirements. The sign has a permit tag dated 1971, the only permit tag on the sign. No application was alleged to have been made for permit or annual fee paid or offered subsequent to 1971 until the application noted in 4, infra. A sign permit application and annual renewal was processed by White Advertising International dated January 21, 1977. The application was an annual renewal for the year of "19 72-1976." The printed application form stated that, "The signs listed above meet all requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Respondent, by its outdoor advertising section administrator, refused to grant the permit on the grounds that the sign which had been erected prior to the enactment of the current setback regulations and probably in the year 1967 had had no application for permit or annual fee paid since 1971 and therefore having become an illegal sign, no permit could be issued. The Petitioner sign company introduced into evidence a letter dated February 28, 1977, from Respondent, Department of Transportation, through its property management administrator which indicated that the State had previously contended the subject sign was built on an unplatted street and had to be removed without compensation but that it was discovered such was not the case and that the State then offered to reimburse Petitioner for relocation costs. Petitioner did not remove the sign and the letter states that the current position of the Respondent State is: That the sign is on the right of way, contrary to Section 339.301, Florida Statutes; Has no current permit; contrary to Section 479.07(1), F.S. Violates Section 479.13, Florida Statutes, as having been constructed, erected, operated, used and maintained without the written permission of the owner or other person in lawful possession or control of the property on which the sign is located; and The sign therefore is an illegal sign and must be removed by Petitioner without compensation. Respondent contends: that the sign is illegal, having failed to be permitted since the year 1971; that it has one pole of the sign pole on the right of way contrary to Section 339.301; that it has no lease contract as required by Section 479.13; that Respondent has no authority to renew delinquent permits; that once a sign becomes illegal a new permit cannot reinstate its nonconforming status. Petitioner, White Advertising International, contends: that it should be granted a permit inasmuch as permits for some signs had been granted by the Respondent although the annual permit fee was not timely made.
Recommendation Remove subject sign if the same has not been removed within thirty (30) days from the date of the Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 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: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William D. Rowland, Esquire White Advertising International Post Office Box 626 Titusville, Florida
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns the sign located on the west side of and adjacent to U.S. Highway 331, approximately 5.5 miles north of the intersection of U.S. Highway 331 and U.S. Highway 90 in Walton County, Florida. The sign advertises a motel owned by Petitioner. The sign is important to the motel's business. The sign is required to have an outdoor advertising sign permit. U.S. Highway 331 is a Federal Aid Primary Highway and was a Federal Aid Primary Highway prior to the sign's erection. Walton County is operating under a duly adopted comprehensive plan. However, the State of Florida has not fully approved such plan and Walton County has not yet entered into a compliance agreement with the State in regards to its comprehensive plan. Pursuant to its comprehensive plan, Walton County utilizes a method of zoning known as "performance zoning", as opposed to the traditional "euclidian zoning". Performance zoning has specific regulations and restrictions for each type of use, and each type of use has to meet certain criteria. In essence, performance zoning allows mixed uses of certain zones within the county. Different areas of the county have different requirements regarding the development of such use in order to safeguard the integrity of the zoning plan. The specific area where the sign is located allows for commercial, industrial and residential use and is permitted by the zoning scheme of Walton County. In a general sense, residential as well as commercial and industrial use is allowed in all of the areas of Walton County north of U.S. Highway 90. This area constitutes approximately one-half of the county. However, zones contained within the areas of Walton County north of U.S. Highway 90 may differ in the circumstances and criteria of the zoning plan under which such uses would be permitted. Even though Walton County was comprehensively zoned, Respondent's previous administration treated Walton County as if it did not have zoning. Therefore, Respondent would have previously permitted the sign in question. However Respondent changed its treatment of Walton County because it had been cited by the Federal Highway Administration for its lax interpretation of zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas within the counties. The Federal Highway Administration threatened to withdraw federal highway monies if the Department did not begin to follow the language in its statutes and rules defining zoned and unzoned areas. The clear language of the Respondent's statutes and rules governing the permitting of outdoor advertising signs, as well as the threatened action of the Federal Highway Administration demonstrate the reasonableness of and the factual basis for the Department's change in its interpretation of zoned and unzoned areas within a county. In this case, it is clear that the sign is located in a zoned area and not in an unzoned area. The area in which the sign is located is not zoned commercial or industrial. The area is zoned for mixed use according to the performance zoning utilized by Walton County. Since the sign is not in an area zoned commercial or industrial, the sign is not permittable under Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for a permit to maintain a sign located on the west side of U.S. Highway 331, approximately 5.5 miles north of the intersection of U.S. Highway 331 and U.S. Highway 90 in Walton County, Florida, be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 5th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 12 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order were not shown by the evidence. The fact contained in paragraph 11 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order are immaterial. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 13 and 14 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended order are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: William K. Jennings 119 E. Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Outdoor Display is a licensed outdoor advertiser holding License No. 18191 from Polk County. The two signs which are referenced in the charges are located on U.S. 92 respectively 2.59 miles and 2.67 miles west of U.S. 27. These signs were inspected in 1975 and the first sign bore 1971 permit issued to Outdoor Display. The signs each had a value of more than $100. Both signs belonged to Outdoor Display, and neither sign bore a current permit. Boger receives application from Outdoor Display as the outdoor advertising administrator but had not received any application with regard to these two signs prior to the hearing.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of Sections 479.07(1)(2)(4)(6) and 479.02, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact A notice of alleged violations was sent to Respondent dated October 27, 1975 stating that pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 479, Section 335.13 and Section 339.301, Florida Statutes, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, the Respondent was notified that the sign structures owned by him were in violation of provisions of Chapter 479, Sections 335.13 and 339.301, Florida Statutes. The subject signs were identified as follows: Copy: Aucilla Plaza Church - Gas Location: 2/10 miles north Junction I-10 Highway: State Road 257 Copy: Credit Cards Honored - Chevrolet 60 9/10, Supr. 65.0 Location: 2/10 miles north Junction I-10 Highway: State Road 257 Prior to the hearing a letter was received from an attorney for the Respondent, Ike Anderson, stating that the Respondent was willing to take down all of the signs and that a hearing was not needed. No Motion for Dismissal was made and no continuance or dismissal was ordered. By letter to the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, the Hearing Officer advised of the receipt of such communications, but no response was received from Petitioner. The hearing was called to order and the witness for Petitioner testified that the signs have been removed except the copy of one of the signs is leaning in the approximate same location against the fence. The poles from which the signs were erected are left standing in the same location. The Hearing Officer further finds: That poles standing alone do not constitute a sign; That a facing of a sign leaning against a fence with the face away from a highway does not constitute a sign. It is the duty of the Department of Transportation under Chapter 479, F.S., Chapter 335, F.S., and Chapter 339, F.S., to enforce the outdoor advertising laws of the State of Florida and that the Respondent, John Taylor, has had a hearing, as provided in Chapter 120, F.S., and as provided in Section 479.17, F.S., and Section 335.13, F.S.
Recommendation Enter an order requiring the removal of outdoor advertising signs erected at this location. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of May, 1976. 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 Mr. John Taylor Route 1, Box 142 Monticello, Florida 32344 Ike Anderson, Esquire P. O. Box 56 Monticello, Florida 32344
Findings Of Fact In 1974 Tag No. 8670-10 was issued to Peterson Outdoor Advertising for a sign located on US 98 one-half mile north of SR 60 in Bartow, Florida. At the time the permit was issued, Peterson had a sublease to erect the sign from the operator of a garage located on this site who leased the property from the owner. In 1980 Lamar bought out Peterson and acquired its assets including the permit for a sign on the garage property. At this time Peterson held a lease from Garfield Jones to occupy the site with one advertising structure. This lease was for a five year period ending December 31, 1984 (Exhibit 6). The lease contained the usual provisions for cancellation by the parties and for extensions beyond the expiration date. In 1985, the garage tenant surrendered his lease, and the building was modified to operate as a feed store. Lamar's sign was removed to make way for the building modification as provided for by the lease. On July 22, 1986, Quality executed a lease with Milton W. Bryan, Jr. (Exhibit 3) for a site for an advertising sign at premises located at 1710 N. Broadway in Bartow, Florida. This is the site for which both of these Petitioners seek permits. As compensation therefor the lessee agrees to pay $1200 a year upon erection of the sign. Subsequent thereto on August 6, 1986, Lamar obtained a lease from Bryan to erect a sign on this same property. As compensation therefor, Lamar provided Bryan with a sign along U.S. 17 south of Bartow at no cost. Lamar also presented Exhibit 4 which was admitted without objection. This is an affidavit of Bryan that upon removal of Lamar's sign during construction of the Feed Depot building Lamar had right of first refusal to rebuild an outdoor advertising structure. No evidence was submitted that Bryan offered or failed to offer Lamar right of first refusal before he executed the lease to Quality.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation ("DOT") originally issued sign permits in 1964 for the location authorized by Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2, and these permits have been renewed continuously thereafter. The location authorized by Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2 is on the east side of U.S. 441. Effective October 30, 1987, Eagle Outdoor Advertising, Inc., which has owned Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2 since 1968 or earlier, transferred them to Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corp. ("Peterson"). On July 10, 1987, Gator Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("Gator") applied to DOT for sign permits. The location for which Gator sought sign permits is on the same side of U.S. 441, approximately 348 feet from the location authorized by Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2. On July 16, 1987, DOT rejected Gator's application solely because the proposed sign location did not meet applicable spacing requirements relative to the sign authorized by Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2. In 1984, the owner withdrew his permission for maintaining the sign authorized by Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2. There has been no sign lease or owner permission for a sign at this location since 1984. As of the date of the final hearing, Peterson had not obtained the owner's permission to maintain a sign. Representatives of the property owner and a representative of Peterson have discussed the possibility of owner permission, but it had not been unequivocally granted.
