Findings Of Fact Based on the record transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Petitioner, the following are found as the relevant facts: The Respondent, Hinson Oil Company, owns four outdoor advertising signs in Gadsden County, Florida, located on the south side of I-10, in the proximity of County Road 270-A. On October 3, 1984, the Department of Transportation notified the Respondent in writing that these signs violated Section 479.11, Florida Statutes, in that they were alleged to be located in an area which is not a zoned or unzoned commercial or industrial area. The return receipt was signed by E. W. Hinson, Jr., on October 9, 1984. Paragraph 2 of the notices of violation served on October 3 and received on October 9, 1984, sets forth the following procedural requirements: You must comply with the applicable provisions of said Statute(s) and Cede(s) within thirty (30) days from the date of this notice, . . . or in the alternative, an administrative hearing under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, must be requested by you within thirty (30) days of the date of this notice . . . E. W. Hinson, Jr., on behalf of the Respondent, requested an administrative hearing by letter dated November 16, 1984. This request was received by the Department of Transportation clerk on November 19, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order dismissing with prejudice the Respondent's request for an administrative hearing in each of these cases. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 24th day of January, 1985, 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 24th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire and Maxine Fay Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 E. W. Hinson, Jr. Hinson Oil Company P.O. Box 1168 Quincy, Florida 32351 John Curry, Esquire P.O. Drawer 391 Quincy, Florida 32351
The Issue At issue in these consolidated proceedings is whether the permits for signs bearing tag numbers BT339, AE862, and AX116 should be revoked, pursuant to Section 479.08, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Lamar owns and maintains outdoor advertising signs in the State of Florida. Pursuant to the permitting requirements of Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, the Department issues permits and tags to outdoor advertising signs along interstate and federal-aid primary highway systems. Signs that met permitting criteria at the time they were erected, but that do not comply with subsequently enacted laws or that no longer comply with the law due to changed conditions, may nonetheless be permitted and maintained as "nonconforming signs."1 In compliance with Subsection 479.02(8), Florida Statutes, the Department in 1997 and 1998 conducted a statewide inventory of all signs on the state interstate and federal-aid primary highway systems. This inventory became the database for all signs permitted at the time it was completed. The Department sent the inventory results to all sign owners in order to provide them an opportunity to confirm or challenge the accuracy of the results. The database includes the location of the sign; the dates the sign was permitted and constructed; its date and method of construction; the height, including the Height Above Ground Level ("HAGL"); the height, width, and square footage of the sign facing; the number and type of support structures used; whether the sign is lighted or not; the status of the sign as a conforming, nonconforming, or illegal sign; and other identifying information. Subsection 479.02(8), Florida Statutes, provides that the inventory of signs is to be updated no less than every two years. The Department in fact performs the update every year. In 2004, a series of hurricanes passed through Florida, destroying or damaging thousands of outdoor advertising signs. The Department issued notices of intent to revoke the permits of nonconforming signs that appeared to have been destroyed by the storms. In February 2005, the Department and Lamar entered into a settlement agreement that allowed Lamar to rebuild some signs and required the removal of others. The signs at issue in this proceeding were among those allowed to remain standing with repair. As to these signs, the settlement agreement provided: The outdoor advertising signs referenced above remain lawfully erected nonconforming signs and LAMAR may repair said signs, provided that said repair shall be at the pre-storm location and to pre-storm specifications, including configuration, type of materials, height, size, area of face and lighting. Exceptions to pre-storm specifications will be allowed to the extent required to comply with local building codes. Such repairs shall be completed within 270 days of entry of a Final Order approving this Joint Stipulation of Settlement. The referenced Final Order was entered on March 15, 2005. The Department issued permit numbers 13778 and 137790 and tag numbers BT339 (replaced by tag number CF221 at the time of the hearing) and AE862 to a nonconforming, back-to-back sign located along U.S. 1 in Martin County, .08 miles north of Constitution Boulevard in Hobe Sound. At the time of the 1997 inventory, the Martin County sign was a five-pole wooden structure. The Martin County sign sustained heavy damage during the 2004 hurricanes. After the storms, Lamar sent a work crew to the sign's location to rebuild the sign. The work crew replaced the sign with a four-pole wooden structure. Dave Henry, the real estate leasing manager for Lamar, testified that he gave the crew no particular instruction on how to rebuild the sign. During the rebuilding process, Mr. Henry gave his crews the locations, and told them to rebuild the signs as they had been before the storms. Mr. Henry stated that the crew probably looked at the remains of the damaged sign, saw only four stumps in the ground, and assumed that the original sign had only four supports. On March 21, 2006, the Department issued a Notice to Lamar, stating that the sign bearing tag numbers BT339 and AE862 "has been structurally changed and is no longer substantially the same as it was on the date it became nonconforming, in violation of s. [sic] 14-10.007(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code Rule." On February 20, 2007, a Recommended Order was entered in Lamar South Florida v. Department of Transportation, Case No. 06-3281 (DOAH February 20, 2007). In that case, Judge R. Bruce McKibben recommended that the Department withdraw a Notice issued to Lamar South Florida because the Notice failed to specify exactly which changes to the sign in question caused the sign to be in violation of the Department's rules. Rather, the Notice merely provided a citation to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2)(a). In a final order dated May 21, 2007, the Department accepted Judge McKibben's recommendation, and acknowledged the "apparent confusion" regarding the running of the 30-day notice period and the nature of the notice required to trigger the running of that period. As a result of the Lamar South Florida case, the Department began to issue Notices that contained more specific information regarding the alleged violations. On July 31, 2007, the Department sent Lamar a replacement Notice for the Martin County sign, adding a more specific description of the violation, which stated that the sign "has been structurally modified in violation of s. [sic] 14-10.007(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code Rule: the number of supports has changed."2 The replacement notice also added the following provision: REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT(S) WILL BECOME FINAL thirty (30) days from your receipt of this notice unless you provide information to the Department showing the Notice was issued in error OR you correct the violation within 30 days of your receipt of this Notice, and provide evidence of the correction to the Department. For nonconforming signs, while you may correct the violation, you may not exceed the allowable maintenance standards as stated in s. 14-10.007(2), F.A.C. Lamar did not act within 30 days of the Notice to correct the violation and restore the Martin County sign to a five-pole structure. Mr. Henry testified that a fifth pole was added to the structure on November 16, 2007. The Department issued permit number 7359 and tag number AX116 to a nonconforming, single-faced sign in Polk County along U.S. 27, .141 miles east of Heatherwood Boulevard in Lake Wales. On November 22, 1997, the Polk County sign was inventoried and photographed as a seven-pole wooden structure. Lamar did not own the sign at the time the 2004 hurricanes damaged it. Lamar acquired the Polk county sign in 2005, after it had been rebuilt as a six-pole structure. On March 21, 2006, the Department issued a Notice to Lamar, stating that the sign bearing tag number AX116 "has been structurally changed and is no longer substantially the same as it was on the date it became nonconforming, in violation of s. [sic] 14-10.007(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code." On July 31, 2007, the Department sent Lamar a replacement Notice for the Polk County sign, adding a more specific description of the violation which stated that the sign "has been structurally modified in violation of s. [sic] 14- 10.007(2), Florida Administrative Code: the number of supports has changed. . .".3 The replacement notice also contained the language quoted at finding of fact 14, supra. Lamar did not act within 30 days of the Notice to correct the violation and restore the Polk County sign to a seven-pole structure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation revoking the permits for the nonconforming signs bearing tag numbers BT339, AE862, and AX116. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 21st day of February, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(e), (h)1., (l), (n), and (r), Florida Statutes (1995), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Luis Delgado (Delgado), was licensed by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), as a certified roofing contractor and as qualifying agent for Strong Roof, Inc. (Strong), having been issued license number CCC057175. The Lago Plaza Shopping Center (Lago) is a 154,000 square foot multi-tenant shopping center located in Hialeah, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, it was owned by a New York real estate company named Emmes & Company through its subsidiary ABI Property Partners L.P. XIX (ABI). In 1996, the roof of Lago was in need of replacement. On February 5, 1996, ABI through its agent and property manager, Atlantic Western Asset Management (Atlantic Western), entered into a written contract with Strong to replace the roof for $185,000. On or about February 5, 1996, Strong provided Atlantic Western with a performance and payment bond for $185,000, as required by Article 21 of the contract between ABI and Strong. Unbeknownst to Atlantic Western at the time the bond was delivered, the performance and payment bond was not genuine, and Delgado knew that the bond was not genuine. The roof replacement work was completed by June 17, 1996. Unbeknownst to Atlantic Western, Delgado allowed Alberto Rodriguez (Rodiguez) and Galaxy Remodeling, Inc. (Galaxy) to use Delgado's contractor's license to obtain the building permit for the Lago project and to perform the work necessary to complete the project. At all times material to this proceeding, neither Rodriguez nor Galaxy was licensed to practice contracting in Florida, and Delgado knew they were not licensed. Pursuant to the contract, Atlantic Western made payments to Strong with seven checks payable to Strong in the total amount of the contract price of $185,000. The amounts and dates of the payments were as follows: $9,250 dated 2/14/96; $9,250 dated 3/13/96; $37,000 dated 4/2/96; $55,500 dated 4/11/96; $37,000 dated 4/27/96; $27,000 dated 6/13/96; and $10,000 dated 6/13/96. In exchange for each of the checks, Strong gave a signed release of lien representing that it had paid for all labor and materials used in the project Within 30 days after the last payment to Strong, Bradco Supply Corporation (Bradco), filed a claim of lien against Lago for $65,891.23 for roofing and/or siding materials ordered by "Galaxy Remodeling, Inc./Strong Rfg. Inc." On July 12, 1996, at the request of Atlantic Western, Delgado met at the shopping center with representatives of Atlantic Western and an attorney for the owner of the property to discuss the lien filed by Bradco. At the meeting, Delgado agreed to remove the lien, but he never did. Later Bradco sued to foreclose the lien, and the owner of Lago paid $60,000 to Bradco to have the lien removed. The owner unsuccessfully sought recourse against the payment bond, which turned out to be fraudulent. On or about June 17, 1996, when the work was completed, Strong gave a ten-year written warranty, which included correcting any leaks due to poor installation. Leaks were discovered, and Atlantic Western and the attorney for the owner reported the leaks to Strong, who failed to perform any correction work or otherwise investigate to determine whether its warranty would be applicable. Atlantic Western retained another roofing company to repair the leaks, at a cost of several hundred dollars. On or about September 27, 1996, the owner of Lago filed a lawsuit against Delgado, Strong, and others, alleging that the defendants breached the contract and committed various other civil wrongs related to the practice of contracting in reference to the roof replacement at Lago. On April 23, 1997, the lawsuit was mediated, resulting in a settlement agreement which was signed by Delgado individually and as president of Strong. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Delgado admitted most of the factual allegations in the civil complaint and agreed to the entry of a judgment in the amount of $73,755.25. The settlement agreement provided that Delgado, Strong, Rodriguez, and Galaxy were to pay the plaintiff $2,500.00 by April 25, 1997; $2,500.00 by July 25, 1997; and $20,000.00 by August 25, 1997. The settlement agreement further provided that if the payments were not made, the plaintiff could execute on the judgment. On May 15, 1997, an Agreed Final Judgment was entered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement. The first $2,500.00 payment was made but no further payments have been made. The plaintiff garnished two bank accounts, totaling $3,084.28. At the time of the final hearing, there have been no other payments or collections toward satisfying the judgment, and the judgment remains unsatisfied. The judgment was not appealed and has not been discharged in bankruptcy. A motion for relief from judgment was never filed, and there has not been an agreement to receive periodic payments, other than as stated in the settlement agreement. As of August 10, 1999, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs associated with attorneys' fees, totaled $473.25.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order as follows: Finding that Luis Delgado violated Sections 489.129 (1)(e), (h)1., (l), (n), and (r), Florida Statutes (1995), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Imposing administrative fines for each count in the Administrative Complaint as follows: Count I $750 Count II $500 Count III $3,000 Count IV $500 Count V $250 Count VI $500 Assessing Luis Delgado $473.25 for the costs of the investigation and prosecution incurred in this case through August 10, 1999. Requiring Luis Delgado to make restitution to ABI Property Partners L.P. XIX in the amount of $68,170.97 or, in the alternative, provide proof of satisfaction of the May 15, 1997, Agreed Final Judgment in Case No. 96-19621 CA (06) in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida. Revoking Luis Delgado's certified roofing contractor license number CCC057175. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 17th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Luis Delgado 344 Northwest 136th Place Miami, Florida 33182 Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent, Toulla Xiotas, Inc., d/b/a Gulf Breeze Landscaping, was indebted to Petitioner for Florida-grown agricultural products as alleged in the Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner was a grower of ornamental and decorative plants in Florida for sale to, among others, landscapers and wholesalers. For some time prior to the period in issue, Respondent, Toulla Xiotas, Inc., d/b/a Gulf Breeze Landscaping, has been engaged in the landscaping business in the Sarasota County area and has made numerous purchases of plants from Petitioner. On December 24, 1996, Respondent paid $7,088.74 to Petitioner to cover the cost of purchases made between July 24 and August 30, 1996, plus interest. Thereafter, on January 20, 1997, Respondent purchased eight number ten wax myrtle trees from Petitioner at $30.00 a piece for a total of $240.00. On January 22, 1997, Respondent purchased one number thirty E.P. holly from Petitioner for $75.00, and on April 1, 1997, purchased one number thirty ligustrum for $75.00. The total of the three purchases was $390.00. Notwithstanding that Petitioner submitted invoices for those purchases on March 31, May 29, July 31, and August 29, 1997, none of the amount due has been paid. Respondent did not, in any way, contest the obligation. Even in its Answer to the Complaint, it did not deny the obligation but merely indicated its attempt to work out some accommodation with its creditors. Respondent’s Answer also reflected that its surety was Frontier Insurance Company of New York.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a Final Order in this matter directing Respondent, Toulla Xiotas, Inc., d/b/a Gulf Breeze Landscaping to pay Petitioner, Angers Sun Tree Nursery, Inc., the sum of $390.00. In the event this sum is not paid by the Respondent, the Department should apply the bond posted by Frontier Insurance company of New York in the amount due and payable. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert S. Angers, II Angers Sun Tree Nursery, Inc. 900 Sinclair Drive Sarasota, Florida 34240 Toulla Xiotas, Inc., d/b/a Gulf Breeze Landscaping 901 MacEwen Drive Osprey, Florida 34229 Frontier Insurance Company of New York 195 Lake Louise Marie Road Rock Hill, New York 12775-8000 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Lamar acquired permits AA-634 and 7504 from Peterson Outdoor Advertising Company for a double-faced sign located on U.S. 98, South, approximately one-half mile north of Crystal Lake Drive on a site leased from Mary D. and Billy Allred. The lease (Exhibit 1.), executed in 1978, was for a three-year term with automatic renewal for an additional five year period and thereafter from year to year on the same terms and conditions unless terminated by lessee by giving 30-days notice prior to the end of the lease year. By warranty deed dated June 14, 1983, (Exhibit 2.) Sun State acquired the property on which this sign was located from Allred. Rent on this lease for 1984 was sent to Allred by Lamar, endorsed over to Sun State and cashed by Sun State. A check for rent for 1985 sent by Lamar to Sun State was never negotiated. By letter dated April 3, 1985, (Exhibit 4.) Sun State Homes told Lamar to immediately remove the sign from its property on U.S. 98, South. On May 16, 1985, Sun State applied for a permit for a sign on U.S. 98, 550-feet north of North Crystal Lake Drive. This application was disapproved by DOT on June 7, 1985, in Exhibit 3 because it was in conflict with the sign for which Lamar held tags for the proposed site. On or about the same time, Sun State applied to Polk County for a building permit to erect a sign at this site. Polk County disapproved the application because DOT had denied the permit. By letter dated May 29, 1985, Sun State appealed the denial of their application. On or about May 27, 1985, Lamar removed their sign from Sun State's property. On May 28, 1985, Lamar submitted an application for a permit to erect a sign on U.S. 98, 1,200 feet north of N. Crystal Lake Drive (Exhibit 5.) and simultaneously surrendered tags no. AA-634 and 7504. Lamar had obtained permission from the owner of that property to erect a sign at this site. This application was denied by DOT because of the appeal by Sun State from its denial. DOT will not approve an application for a sign permit when the right of occupancy of the site is contested. Lamar appealed this denial and the two cases were consolidated for hearing. The two applications are mutually exclusive as only one can be granted without violating spacing requirements.
Findings Of Fact State outdoor advertising permits numbered 108 60-10 and 10861-10 were issued in February of 1979, and are now held by Headrick Outdoor Advertising, Inc. These permits authorize a sign on the south side of U.S. 90A, approximately 300 feet west of SR 95A, in Escambia County, Florida. In July of 1985, Lamar Advertising Company applied for state outdoor advertising permits to erect a sign facing east and west on the south side of U.S. 90A, approximately 400 feet east of U.S. 29, in Escambia County, Florida. The location proposed by Lamar in its application is in conflict with the location where Headrick holds permits, in that the two sites are less than 1,000 feet apart. The land where the Headrick signs had been located, and the site where the Headrick permits authorize a sign, has been graded and paved, and is being used as a shopping center. In the course of the construction of this shopping center, the Headrick signs were removed, and Headrick no longer has a lease for its permitted site or permission of the property owner to locate a sign there. Lamar has a lease to the site where it applied for permits. This lease is from the owner of the land, and it grants Lamar permission to locate a sign at the location sought to be permitted, through February, 1992.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the state sign permits numbered 10860-10 and 10861-10 held by Headrick Outdoor Advertising, Inc., authorizing a sign on the south side of U.S. 90A, approximately 300 feet west of SR 95A, in Escambia County, Florida be revoked. And it is further RECOMMENDED that the application of Lamar Advertising Company for permits to erect a sign facing east and west on the south side of U.S. 90A, approximately 400 feet east of U.S. 29, in Escambia County, Florida, be granted. THIS Recommended Order entered on this 15th day of January, 1987, 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 15th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert P. Gaines, Esquire P. O. Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. Jim Baughman Vice President Headrick Outdoor Advertising, Inc. 404 Jenks Avenue, Suite "B" Panama City, Florida 32401 Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 A. J. Spalla General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
Findings Of Fact James Zaharako is the Executive Vice-President of J. R. Brooks & Sons, Inc. In this capacity he is involved in the management and administration of J. R. Brooks & Sons, Inc., including but not limited to collection of sums owed. He or his subordinates agreed to fill orders for avocadoes from Sunshine Produce Company, Inc. totalling $84,193.25 set out as follows: DATE INVOICE NO. DOLLAR AMOUNT 06/10/83 45434 $9,256.25 01/05/84 125261 7,337.00 01/11/84 12096 4,936.00 01/12/84 12168 6,610.50 01/26/84 14094 8,908.00 01/26/84 14127 8,755.00 02/02/84 15114 10,172.50 02/08/84 22125 7,340.00 02/08/84 22126 10,632.00 02/15/84 23141 10,246.00 $84,193.25 These agricultural products were delivered into the care, custody and control of truck drivers employed by Sunshine Produce, Company, Inc. at the J. R. Brooks packing facility located in Homestead, Florida. The transaction, except for payment to J. R. Brooks, was complete at that time. Despite many attempts to collect the total amount, representatives of Sunshine refused, declined, or failed to pay J. R. Brooks & Sons, Inc. the amount charged without offering any reason except that they did not have sufficient funds. The surety, pursuant to bond FS-106353 for Sunshine Produce Company, Inc. is Allied Fidelity Insurance Company. The amount on this bond is capped at $4,000 for events arising between August 7, 1983, and August 6, 1984. Seventy-four thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven dollars ($74,937.00) of the total unpaid-for orders were filled by J. R. Brooks & Son to Sunshine Produce Company, Inc. in this period of time.
The Issue Whether the outdoor advertising signs in question are in violation of the applicable statutes and regulations and whether their permits should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent applied to the Petitioner for outdoor advertising permits at a location on the west side of State Road 263, 674 feet north of U.S. Highway 90, with signs facing north and south. Prior to making application with the Petitioner, Mr. Mooshie contacted the Tallahassee Leon County Department and was advised that the site was located within county jurisdiction. Mr. Mooshie applied for and received a permit from Leon County whereby the county asserted jurisdiction over the area in question. The site in question is within the city limits of Tallahassee and was in the city limits of Tallahassee at the time Mr. Mooshie applied for the permit. The permit applications submitted by the Respondent indicated that the sign site was not inside the city limits. State Permit Tag Numbers BB 729-35 and BB 730-35 were issued on July 22, 1990 for the site in question. The Respondent applied to the City of Tallahassee for a city permit for the subject site on July 11, 1990 and was advised that a permit could not be issued because a city permit had been issued to Lamar Advertising for a location 600 feet north on the same street on June 21, 1990. The Petitioner issued an outdoor advertising permit to Lamar Advertising for the site for which the city had issued a building permit prior to the final hearing in this case. The City of Tallahassee sign ordinance requires 2,000 feet spacing between billboards on the same side of the street. No sign structure has been erected at the site in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that State Permit Tag Numbers BB 729-35 and BB 730-35 be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Esq. Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 John S. Mooshie Wakoa, Inc. Post Office Box 12335 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Thornton J. Williams, Esq. General Counsel 605 Suwannee Street 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
