The Issue With respect to DOAH Case No. 99-3345T, whether the Respondent must remove the double-faced outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to I-95, on the west side of the highway, 1.25 miles south of North Lake Boulevard, in Palm Beach County, Florida, for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Violation - Illegally Erected Sign, dated March 31, 1999. With respect to DOAH Case No. 99-3346T, whether the Respondent's permits for a double-faced outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to I-95, on the west side of the highway, 1.25 miles south of North Lake Boulevard, in Palm Beach County, Florida, and bearing permit numbers AZ346-35 and AZ347-35, should be revoked for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Violation - Maintenance of Nonconforming Signs dated March 31, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for, among other things, issuing permits and regulating outdoor advertising structures and signs along the state highway system, the interstate system, and the federal-aid primary system. Section 479.02, Florida Statutes (1999). National Advertising 2/ is the owner of a double- faced outdoor advertising sign located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The sign is located on the west side of Interstate 95, 1.25 miles south of North Lake Boulevard. At the time the structure was erected, the sign faces were visible to both southbound and northbound traffic of Interstate 95. At the times material to this proceeding, the sign at issue was a non- conforming sign. At the times material to this proceeding, the sign structure consisted of seven wooden poles placed in the ground and secured by concrete. Two metal heads, the sign faces themselves, were attached to the poles, one facing north and one facing south. The structure also included a metal catwalk providing access to the sign faces, as well as miscellaneous trim and equipment. At some time prior to the incidents giving rise to these proceedings, a sound wall was erected by the Department along Interstate 95, which blocked visibility of the National Advertising sign face by northbound traffic. In March 1999, National Advertising determined that the existing wooden poles supporting the sign heads were deteriorating and needed to be replaced. In addition, National Advertising decided to raise the height-above-ground-level ("HAGL") of the sign to maintain the same visibility of the sign face by the northbound traffic as that which existed before the sound wall was erected. Consequently, National Advertising contracted with a company to relocate the poles and transfer the existing sign faces and attached equipment to the new poles. Holes were dug approximately five feet from the original wooden poles, and new wooden poles were set in these holes. A crane lifted the sign faces and the attached trim and equipment and supported them while the old wooden poles were cut down slightly above ground level. The crane then moved the sign faces and the attached trim and equipment to the new poles, and the assemblage was bolted to the new wooden poles. The original wooden poles supporting the sign heads were approximately 12-to-13 inches in diameter, and the HAGL of the original sign faces was approximately 24 feet. The new wooden poles were approximately 20-to-22 inches in diameter, and the HAGL of the sign faces was raised to approximately 50 feet. The structure of the sign was not altered, and the materials used in the sign faces were not altered. The poles supporting the sign faces can be changed as part of the routine maintenance of an outdoor advertising sign, as long as the new posts are of the same material and configuration; the replacement of deteriorating poles is standard industry practice and is required to maintain the safety of the sign. The sign must, however, stay in the same relative location on the ground as the old sign. It is standard industry practice to place new supporting poles a few feet away from the exact location of the old supporting poles in order to provide a firm foundation for the new poles. The Department uses the term "remove" in its notices of violation as a "general term" meaning "[t]o move [a sign] away from the site, to move it any distance away from where it was installed previously." 3/ Nonetheless, the charges in the Notices of Violation issued in these cases were based on the Department's mistaken conclusion that National Advertising "cut down the entire sign, discarded it and built an entire new sign in its place." 4/ The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the permitted outdoor advertising sign was removed from its original location and re-erected. Because it has not established with the requisite degree of certainty that the sign was re-erected, the Department cannot sustain its charge that the outdoor advertising sign at issue herein was erected without a permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Violation - Illegally Erected Sign in DOAH Case No. 99-3345T and dismissing the Notice of Violation - Maintenance of Nonconforming Signs in DOAH Case No. 99-3346T. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 18th day of September, 2000.
The Issue There are three issues presented: Whether the signs in question were erected at such a time and under such conditions that would entitle them to be permitted; Whether the signs in question, if not entitled to a permit, have some type of grandfather status where the owner would be entitled to compensation for the removal; and Whether the signs in question qualify as on-premise signs not requiring a permit. Both parties submitted detailed proposed recommended orders, which have been read and considered. There are few disputes concerning the basic facts. To the extent the findings herein differ from the proposals, those findings are based upon the most credible evidence. Certain findings have been deleted because they are not relevant to the issues or are not findings of fact.
Findings Of Fact The signs in question in Cases No. 81-1672T and 81-1675T are on the north-facing wall of the "El Okey Market" at 1630 NW 27th Avenue in Miami, Florida. Each sign is an aluminum framed poster six by 12 feet. An inspector of the Department of Transportation (Department) Investigated the signs at the El Okey Market in March of 1981, and notices of violation were issued to Empire Outdoor Advertising (Empire) on May 11, 1981. The parties stipulated that the inspection revealed neither sign bears a valid outdoor advertising permit issued by the Department. The signs are visible to traffic traveling south on 27th Avenue and are located within 660 feet of the right of way Empire has acknowledged owning the signs in question The inspector's investigation of the El Okey Market signs also revealed the existence of a permitted outdoor advertising sign, owned by another sign company, which is located approximately 70 feet south of the Empire signs and which also faces north. The Department introduced into evidence a map, certified by a Department official, which shows the Federal-Aid Primary Highway System for the Miami area as it existed in 1979. The inspector located the El Okey Market on the map, which indicates that that portion of 27th Avenue was a Federal-Aid Primary Highway in 1979. No contrary evidence was introduced. At the location of the subject signs, 27th Avenue is a Federal-Aid Primary Highway. The Vice President and General Manager of Empire testified that the present company evolved from a firm called Peppi Advertising Company started by his father, and that he had been employed by the company since the early 1950's. The firm was sold to Donnelly Advertising and then to Ackerly Communications, and continued to operate as Empire. The firm obtained a building permit on June 6, 1965, for the erection of billboard-type signs on the side of the building located at 1630 NW 27th Avenue. The Vice President testified it was company policy to erect signs shortly after the permit was issued. He further testified that he serviced the poster through the 1960's. The signs in question were erected in 1965, and have been in existence since that date. No permits were applied for when the signs became subject to regulation in 1971. Photographs had been taken of the signs in question showing advertising copy on July 15, 1982, to consist of Kraft Mayonnaise and EverReady Energizer Batteries. Advertising copy on June 24, 1982, shows Kraft Cheese and J & B Scotch in Spanish. The above items are products of national companies who pay Empire to advertise their products. Empire pays the El Okey Market for the privilege of placing the signs on the wall of the market. The signs in question are not on-premise signs. Patrick D. Galvin, the Department's Administrator for outdoor advertising, testified that it is the Department's policy to deny permits to signs lawfully erected within the city limits prior to the date such signs became subject to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, where the sign is less than the prescribed distance from a second sign which has obtained a valid outdoor advertising permit from the Department. It is the inspector's practice to recommend that a permit be issued to applicants where the sign in question has no permit but was built before the date permits became required and is otherwise a lawful sign. The Department admitted policy is that lawfully erected signs may lose their grandfather status as nonconforming signs under Chapter 479 and may thus become subject to uncompensated removal because the owner failed to obtain a permit within the 60-days period which followed the effective date of Florida's outdoor advertising regulations.
Recommendation The Department of Transportation has shown that the signs in question are subject to removal because they have been in existence for more than five years since they became nonconforming. The Department may remove the signs at anytime upon payment to the owner for full value of the subject signs which were erected prior to December 8, 1971. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 21st day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 L. Martin Reeder, Jr., Esquire Jeffrey Bercow, Esquire 1400 SE Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Paul N. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the permit for sign installation previously issued by the Department of Transportation is still valid to authorize Petitioner’s sign located on State Road 60 in Pinellas County.
Findings Of Fact The parties entered into two stipulations of fact which are accepted and incorporated herein. Stipulation of Fact #1 reads: The off-premise outdoor advertising billboard structure located at 2815-2817 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida, owned by Allan J. Stowell was lawfully erected under the applicable provisions of the City’s ordinances in the fall of 1981. The City issued building permit number 6361D, dated September 3, 1981, to Stowell to erect the billboard in issue. On August 25, 1985, the City of Clearwater adopted sign regulations which required, among other things, uniformity among signs. City Code Section 44.55(3)(b), required that all billboards on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, east of Highland Avenue, be brought into conformance with the Code provisions by January 19, 1996. On January 19, 1989, the City adopted Ordinance No. 4753-88, regulating signs on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Pursuant to that ordinance, the billboard in issue became non-conforming due to its size. Mr. Stowell was allowed a seven-year amortization period which expired on January 19, 1996. By letter dated August 30, 1994, the City advised Mr. Stowell that the billboard in issue would have to be brought into compliance with the provisions of the City’s sign ordinance by January 19, 1996. As a result of the sign regulations adopted by the City in 1985, the billboard in issue was classified thereafter as a legal non-conforming sign, and it was such on November 25, 1995. Stipulation of Fact #2 reads: State Road 60 means that segment of roadway, also known as Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, which is located within the City of Clearwater and is east of Highway 19. The effective date of the national highway system was November 28, 1995, and all references in stipulated exhibits, stipulations, transcripts of depositions, correspondence or other documents which erroneously refer to November 25, 1995, shall be amended to read November 28, 1995, for the purposes of this administrative proceeding. Any reference in this administrative proceeding to the “subject sign,” “billboard,” “off-premise outdoor advertising structure,” “sign,” or other similar designations shall mean the off-premise outdoor advertising billboard structure owned by the Petitioner and located at 2815-2817 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (State Road 60). On May 22, 1974, State Road 60 was designated a Federal- Aid Primary. On July 1, 1976, State Road 60 was re-designated from a Federal-Aid Primary to a Federal-Aid Urban. Allan J. Stowell was licensed by the Florida Department of Transportation as an outdoor advertiser pursuant to license number 19848, dated October 2, 1981. On or about October 1, 1981, Allan J. Stowell was issued state sign permit numbers AF307-10 and AF308-10, by the Florida Department of Transportation, for the construction, maintenance and operation of the two sign facings on the subject billboard structure. At this point, State Road 60 was not part of the Federal-Aid Primary Highway System within Florida. After 1988, the Department discontinued billing Mr. Stowell because State Road 60 was not a Federal-Aid Primary, Interstate, or a part of the State Highway System outside a municipality. State Road 60 became a part of the national highway system on November 25, 1995. Petitioner, Allan J. Stowell, purchased the property on which the sign in issue is located in 1972. At that time, a sign owned by Foster and Kleiser (F&K), an outdoor advertising firm, was situated on the property. After Petitioner purchased the property, he entered an amended lease agreement with F&K for the use of his property. At that time, the existing sign was permitted by the state. Subsequent to the execution of the amended lease, because he wanted to develop the land and put up his own sign, Mr. Stowell requested that F&K remove their sign from his property, and an agreement to do that was received on August 3, 1981. During his research in preparation for the request for removal, Mr. Stowell spoke with Mr. Andre DeVetter of the Brandon office of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. DeVetter advised him the sign was located adjacent to a Federal Aid Primary Highway, that the property on which the sign was to be located was properly zoned for that purpose, that after removal of the existing sign, Stowell could apply for and receive a permit for a new sign, and that under the terms of the Federal Highway Beautification Act (the Act), Mr. Stowell could not be required to take the sign down without compensation therefor. Based on these assurances, Petitioner borrowed $35,000, placing his home as collateral for the loan, which he used for the construction of the new sign. Before starting construction, however, Mr. Stowell went to the City of Clearwater for both a permit for the construction and a variance to exceed the normal size limitations because his proposed sign was to be bigger than the code calls for by more than 100 square feet. He requested and obtained a permit to construct a 10 by 40-foot sign. The variance was initially denied by the city’s sign approval board, but a subsequent action by the Board of Adjustment granted the variance. Though the minutes of the pertinent meeting of the Board of Adjustment cannot now be found, Mr. Stowell has a letter dated August 21, 1997, from DOT in which the Department agrees that a variance was granted. He also obtained an occupational license to conduct the outdoor sign business. Mr. Stowell constructed the new sign which was permitted by the Department as promised in 1982. He thereafter obtained renewals of the permits for the sign from DOT for calendar years 1983 and 1984 - one for each face. Over the succeeding years, Mr. Stowell did not receive annual renewal notices for the years 1985, 1986, or 1987, and the fees for those years were not initially paid. However, he received a letter in 1988 indicating he was delinquent in certain costs and fees for the permits. When he received that letter, Mr. Stowell sent in a check for the delinquent costs and fees in the amount of $308.00, which covered all delinquent permit fees and a 10 percent delinquency penalty, and believed his delinquencies had been brought current. The Department issued permits to Mr. Stowell for the sign in 1981 and 1982. After the delinquencies were brought current in 1988, Mr. Stowell did not hear anything further from the Department, other than the previously mentioned letter, which noted the sign was now on the Federal Highway System and he needed to obtain permits for it. Since he had previously been issued permits for the sign in 1981 and 1982, and since he had never received any notice that those permits had been revoked, he mistakenly believed his status was acceptable. When Mr. Stowell received the variance from the city for the 14 by 48-foot sign prior to its installation, he advised Mr. DeVetter at the Department’s Brandon office of its granting and was told his status was acceptable. After the City later sent him a letter indicating that the sign had to come down due to a change in the City ordinance, instead of planning to amortize the cost of the sign over the succeeding seven years, he started research into what he needed to do to obtain compensation for the taking as is required by the FHBA. In response, he received a copy of a certificate of sign removal from Reginald N. Millian, the Department’s Outdoor and Property Advertising Inspector, indicating that the sign had been removed by the owner, and that this determination was made based on a personal visit to the site. This was patently in error. The sign had not been removed and, in fact, had been operated and maintained, structurally unchanged, continuously since its construction in 1981. After the Department advised Mr. Stowell of his delinquency in permit fees in September 1988, even after the fees were paid up, due to the change in jurisdiction status, the Department inactivated his permits for this sign, dropped his permit numbers from its permit billing inventory, and did not issue and further billings to him for the previously issued permits. However, the Department did not issue a notice of intent to revoke the two permits, AF307-10 and AF308-10, nor did it in any way advise Mr. Stowell that his permits were no longer valid. Mr. Stowell mistakenly assumed that his sign was validly permitted, even after the City notified him of its status in 1994. After the Department reassumed jurisdiction, by letter dated June 21, 1996, the Department’s District Administrator, Property Management/ODA, Susan L. Rosetti, advised Mr. Stowell that his sign was not permitted and that the sign’s two faces required permits. At this point Mr. Stowell was provided with application forms for the permits and a set of instructions. After receipt of the June 21, 1996, letter, Mr. Stowell contacted Kenneth M. Towcimak, the Director of the Department’s Office of Right-of-Way, to request assistance in obtaining the required permits. In response, Mr. Towcimak advised Mr. Stowell that the permits had been inactivated by the Department, and that because State Road 60, on which the sign was located, was now under the Department’s jurisdiction, he had to obtain a new state permit by January 1, 1997. Towcimak contacted the City to determine the appropriate status of the sign, and as a result of this inquiry, advised Stowell in writing on November 6, 1996, that the Department was precluded by Florida Statute from approving any application for a permit which was not accompanied by a statement from the appropriate local government that the sign complies with all local government requirements, and that the local government will issue a permit upon approval of the application by the Department. Thereafter, On December 31, 1996, Mr. Stowell filed an application with the Department by certified mail. The document reflects it was date stamped in the Department on January 1, 1997, at 4:31 p.m., and again on January 3, 1997, at 1:07 p.m. Since the application Mr. Stowell filed was to reinstate the previously issued permits and not for new permits, he failed to complete a number of the information blocks on the form. On January 21, 1997, the Department issued a Notice of Denied Application for the permits to Mr. Stowell. The denial form reflected the reason for denial was that Mr. Stowell had failed to provide proof of ownership of the billboard, and had provided incorrect information on the application form. The evidence of record indicates that Mr. Stowell did provide the requested proof of ownership of both the billboard and the property on which it is located in his application. One of the City’s previously existing sign ordinances was declared unconstitutional by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on March 23, 1993. Since that time, the City has not enacted a comprehensive sign ordinance, but in 1989 it enacted an ordinance, No. 4753-88, which relates to signs located on SR 60 and which requires those signs on that road which are non- conforming to be brought into conformance or removed within seven years. This provides affected sign owners an opportunity to either bring the sign into conformity with the requirements or amortize the cost of the sign over seven years. Mr. Towcimak, Director of the Department’s Office of Right-of-Way, indicated that when the national highway system under ISTEA came into effect in November 1995, the Department had no inventory of existing signs. As a result, it did not provide notice to the owners of effected signs, and instructed its district offices to accept applications for sign permits through January 1, 1997. The operations of the Department of Transportation are decentralized with policy being set at the headquarters, but the day-to-day operations being determined at each of the eight districts. As to outdoor advertising enforcement, however, while each district handles enforcement, accounting is handled in the central office. In doing so, the Department follows the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, which specifies that all permits expire on January 15 of each year. In practice, the advertiser is billed by October 1 of each year and is furnished a list of all permits shown by the Department records to be held by that permittee, along with a bill for all fees owed. If the Department records do not reflect an active permit for a particular sign, no billing will go out for that sign. Petitioner’s instant application for permit reflects it was timely received in the pertinent Department office. It is general practice within the Department for the District Outdoor Advertising Administrator to review the application and decide whether to grant or deny the permit. Thereafter, the application is forwarded to the central office for final check prior to issuance of the metal tag. It is Department practice to issue or deny the permit within 30 days of receipt of the application, as mandated by statute. When an application for a permit for an outdoor sign is received by the Department it is agency practice to review it for completeness. If the application is complete, a decision is made whether to approve or disapprove the application. If the application is incomplete, it is returned to the applicant without decision. However, if an application is incomplete, but it is apparent that, even if complete, the application would not be approved, that application will be returned “denied” rather than “incomplete.” There are several requirements which must be satisfied before an application may be approved. One of these is that the applicant submit a statement from the local government that the proposed sign would comply with local sign regulations, as required by Section 479.07(3)(b), Florida Statutes. If an application is received by the Department without this element being present, the Department may either return the application as incomplete or, if it appears the sign does not comply with local sign regulations, deny the application. The “Harmony of Regulations” provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, prohibits the state from issuing a permit where local government does not approve the sign, and prohibits local governments from issuing a sign permit where the Department does not approve. Consistent with that direction, when Petitioner contacted Mr. Towcimak to request guidance in the permitting process, and outlined his problem regarding the City’s position, Mr. Towcimak contacted the City to find out where that entity stood. On two separate occasions, the City advised the Department in writing that Petitioner’s existing sign was illegal and it would not grant permission for the Department to issue a sign permit. When that information was received by the Department, Petitioner was advised of the City’s position and that the permit would not be issued as a result.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order denying Petitioner permits for the maintenance of the signs in issue, and denying compensation for their removal. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1998, 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 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Livingston & Associates, P.A. Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: Diedre Grubbs 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's applications to erect a steel monopole which would support a two- sided outdoor advertising sign to be located west of Interstate Highway 95 (I-95), 2,244 feet north of I-95's intersection with Indrio Road, St. Lucie County, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters Petitioner POZ Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (POZ), is a corporation engaged in the business of erecting and maintaining outdoor advertising signs. The principals of POZ are Richard Pozniak and his wife, Barbara. Respondent, Department of Transportation (Department) is a state agency charged with, inter alia, the responsibility to regulate outdoor advertising, under the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code. On February 17, 1997, POZ applied with the Department for permits to erect a monopole sign which would support a two- sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 2,244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road, St. Lucie County, Florida. The Department reviewed the applications, and on February 20, 1997, gave notice to POZ that the applications were denied because the "[s]ite is within 500 feet of a restricted interchange or intersection at grade (S. #14-10.006(1)(b)5, FAC)." POZ filed a timely request for a formal hearing to challenge the Department's decision, and these proceedings duly followed. Matters at issue POZ did not contend, and indeed offered no proof at hearing to demonstrate, that the proposed site was not, as found by the Department, within 500 feet of a restricted interchange or intersection at grade, as proscribed by Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code.2 Rather, as noted in the preliminary statement, POZ contends the Department should be precluded from applying the Rule's spacing provisions as a basis for denial of the requested permits based on a theory of estoppel or a theory of inconsistent application of the Rule's spacing requirements. POZ's estoppel theory To accept POZ's estoppel theory, one must accept, as offered, Mr. Pozniak's version of events which he avers transpired in 1990, when he conducted his outdoor advertising business through AdCon Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (AdCon).3 According to Mr. Pozniak, in 1990 he met with Vana Kinchen, then a sign inspector with the Department, to establish the proper location of a billboard that AdCon proposed to permit. Again, according to Mr. Pozniak, Ms. Kinchen helped him measure the site, and identified the same location at issue in this proceeding (2244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road) as an appropriate placement for a billboard. Following Ms. Kinchen's advice as to location, Mr. Pozniak avers that he applied for permits on behalf of AdCon to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located at the exact same site that is at issue in this proceeding. Those applications, according to Mr. Pozniak, were approved and Department tags issued; however, the sign was not erected within 270 days after the permit issued, as required by Section 479.05(3)(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and the permits became void. Having carefully considered the proof in this case, it must be concluded that Mr. Pozniak's version of the events surrounding AdCon's permitting activities in 1990 is less than credible. Rather, the persuasive proof demonstrates that AdCon's application for permits to erect a billboard at the site at issue in this proceeding were denied and it is most unlikely that Ms. Kinchen ever advised Mr. Pozniak that such site was a proper location for a billboard. Regarding AdCon's permitting activities in 1990, the proof demonstrates that on April 6, 1990, AdCon filed applications (inexplicably dated May 6, 1990) with the Department to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 3050 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road. Consistent with the requirement of Section 479.04(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the applications included a separate statement from the local government that the proposed signs complied with local government requirements. Those applications were approved and, on May 3, 1990, the Department's tag numbers BB-457-35 (for the north facing sign) and BB-458-35 (for the south facing sign) were issued. Subsequently, on November 9, 1990, AdCo filed applications dated November 7, 1990, with the Department to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 2,244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road (the location at issue in this case). Those applications were rejected by the Department on November 15, 1990, because they violated the spacing requirements of Section 479.07(9)(a)1, Florida Statutes, which prohibits the issuance of a permit unless the sign is located at least 1,500 feet from any other sign on the same side of an interstate highway. Notably, as the Department observed at that time, those applications conflicted with the previously approved applications of AdCon for the site located at 3,050 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road, and the permittee still had until January 28, 1991, to erect those signs. The applications were also rejected by the Department because they failed to include a statement from local government as required by Section 479.04(3)(b), Florida Statutes, that the proposed signs complied with local government requirements. Rather, what AdCon submitted was a copy of the local government approval it had secured for the location permitted by the Department on May 3, 1990. That documentation did not, as AdCon knew or should have known, meet the requirements for the new location. Clearly, the Department did not previously permit the site at issue in this case, and it is most unlikely that Ms. Kinchen ever affirmatively advised Mr. Pozniak as to the suitability of the site. In so concluding, Mr. Pozniak's testimony, as well as Petitioner's Exhibit 3 (what purports to be copies of applications, dated November 7, 1990, by AdCon for the site at issue in this proceeding, and purportedly approved by the Department) have been carefully considered. However, when compared with the other proof of record it must be concluded that Petitioner's Exhibit 3 is a fabrication,4 and that Mr. Pozniak's testimony on the subject is not credible or worthy of belief. POZ's theory of inconsistency Mr. Pozniak offered testimony at hearing concerning two outdoor advertising signs at the intersection of I-95 and State Road 60 which he opined did not conform with the Department's spacing requirements and, therefore, represent inconsistent application of the District's rule. The persuasive proof is, however, to the contrary. The first sign, located within 500 feet of the interchange, was in existence when the Department's "ramp rule" regarding spacing requirements became effective and, accordingly, its presence was grandfathered. However, at some time following the enactment of the ramp rule, the owner replaced the sign. At that time, the sign became nonconforming and the Department, as soon as it became aware of the nonconformity, commenced an action to secure the sign's removal. The other sign alluded to by Mr. Pozniak, and identified in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1, is owned by Division Street, Inc., and, contrary to Mr. Pozniak's testimony, that sign complies with the Department's spacing requirements and was properly permitted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the subject applications for outdoor advertising sign permits. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997.
Findings Of Fact 1. Jack L. Foster, an advertising sign inspector for the Department of Transportation, testified that he had inspected a sign 5.50 miles south of Borden on 95 and facing I-95 in Duval County Florida, which sign bore advertising copy advertising the city of St. Augustine which can be read from I- Foster checked with the chamber of commerce of St. Augustine and determined it had leased the sign from Anastasia Advertising Art, Inc. Foster also checked the zoning maps of Duval county at City Hall in Jacksonville, Florida, and learned that the sign was placed in an area zoned "open agricultural". Foster testified that his inspection of the aforestated revealed no permit was attached, and that it was located 25 feet from the right of way line. Foster stated that because of his duties he would have been aware of any application pending for a permit for said sign, and there had been no application filed. On cross examination, Foster stated that he had first observed the sign in 1972, at which time a tag was not required. No other witnesses testified and no other evidence was presented controverting Foster's testimony. The Hearing Officer having not received any further argument from the parties, and having considered the foregoing facts, finds that said sign being 25 feet from the right of way of I-95 violated Subsection 479.11(2), F.S., which states that no outdoor advertising sign shall be constructed, used or maintained: (2) Beyond 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of all portions of the interstate system or the federal-aid primary systems outside of urban areas that is erected with the purpose of its message being read from the main-traveled ways of such system, unless it is of a class or type permitted in subsection 479.111(1) or subsections 479.16(1) or (3)." The Hearing Officer further finds that the failure to affix a permit to said sign violates Subsection 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and further that the Hearing Officer finds that the Department of Transportation has complied with Section 479.08, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer, based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommends to the Agency Head that action be taken to have the subject sign removed with ten (10) days of his Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of March, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Based upon the testimony received the primary issue is whether the poles were erected before the highway, 1-10, was opened to the public. If so, do such poles constitute a sign within the meaning of Section 479.23, Florida Statutes, for the purposes of "grandfathering" such a structure?
Findings Of Fact The subject sign is located 0.8 mile east of State Road 71 on 1-10. This sign was inspected in October, 1980, by an inspector of the Department of Transportation, who observed that the sign's message was visible from the main traveled way of 1-10 and did not bear the permit required by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. At the time of this inspection, 1-10 was open to the public and was a part of the interstate highway system. See DOT Exhibit 1 and DOT Exhibit 3. The sign was located in an unincorporated area of Jackson County, Florida, which does not have a zoning ordinance. (Transcript, page 39.) Prior to the date of the hearing, a name plate identifying Henderson Signs as responsible for the sign was attached to the sign. (Transcript, page 29.) The Department had notified Henderson Signs of the Notice of Violation, and Henderson Signs requested a formal hearing by letter of its Counsel dated December 19, 1980. See file, Case No. 81-100T. The foregoing facts establish that the subject sign is a sign regulated by the Department pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and that Henderson Signs had a substantial interest in the sign. Gene Henderson testified concerning the erection of the poles and the attachment of a sign face to the poles. The sign poles were erected during the latter portion of 1975, and a sign face advertising Ramada Inn was affixed to the poles on November 24, 1977. On August 1, 1980, the sign face was changed to one advertising "Regular diesel this exit." The sign is owned by Henderson Signs, which erected the poles prior to the time 1-10 was opened to the public. The Department introduced DOT Exhibit 3, which shows that the section of 1-10 along which the subject sign is located was opened to the public on October 14, 1977. The Department introduced DOT Exhibit 5, an aerial photograph of the section of 1-10 along which the subject sign is located. This photograph bears the number PD 199 6 and is Sheet 8 of 28 sheets taken on December 29, 1976. The photograph's legend reflects it has a scale of one inch equal to 50 feet. The Department's engineer, who established that the scale was accurate, indicated by a red mark the measured location of the sign 0.8 mile east of SR 71 on 1-10. The photograph was examined by the Department's engineer, who did not observe the presence of poles or an outdoor advertising sign at the location. The photograph was taken nearly one year after the date Henderson stated the poles were erected but does not reveal the presence of the poles. Even if one assumes they were erected, a sign face was not attached until November 24, 1977, more than one month after 1-10 was opened to the public.
Recommendation Having considered the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties, and based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Transportation enter its final order directing the removal of the subject sign within 30 days and without compensation to the sign owner. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 16th day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles M. Wynn, Esquire 310 Jackson Street Post Office Box 793 Marianna, Florida 32446 Jacob D. Varn, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be determined are: a) whether Petitioner’s sign for Crestview Paint and Body is located within Department of Transportation’s (“Department” or “Respondent”) right-of-way; and b) whether the sign is entitled to an on-premises exemption from permitting.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation is the state agency responsible for regulating outdoor advertising along interstates and federal-aid primary roads in accordance with chapter 479, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-10, and a 1972 Federal- State Agreement. Petitioner, Crestview Paint and Body, owns and operates an auto body repair shop on 956 West James Lee Boulevard in Crestview, Florida, and has maintained that location since 1988. In 2006, Petitioner bought property at 701 South Ferdon Boulevard in Crestview, Florida, including a pre-existing sign for Jet Muffler and a building with four units. Petitioner opened the business location in 2007, and replaced the Jet Muffler sign with one for Crestview Paint and Body. One of the issues of dispute in this matter is whether Petitioner conducted business at the Ferdon Boulevard location. Mr. Lowe, owner of Crestview Paint and Body, testified that the Ferdon Boulevard location was operated as a concierge service for Crestview Paint and Body. Mr. Lowe maintains a business occupational license for the Ferdon location and the license was effective and valid when Respondent issued the Notice on April 17, 2017. While a tax collector print-out reflected the business was closed, the credible evidence supports that the concierge location maintained a valid business occupation license. Mr. Lowe had business cards made with a photograph of the Ferdon Boulevard location showing Hertz and Crestview Paint and Body, and the words “Collision Concierge and Rental Car Center, 701 S. Ferdon Blvd, Crestview, Florida.” Another card read “2 Locations to Serve You Better” with the addresses for Ferdon Boulevard and James Lee Boulevard. The Crestview Paint and Body sign at issue here was located at the Ferdon Boulevard location. It was erected at the same spot as the predecessor sign that advertised the Jet Muffler business and installed under permit No. 2007-0430. Petitioner complied with all Crestview local ordinances required to erect the sign. As the sign was replacing an established sign, it is not clear if the City of Crestview required a survey of the location prior to installation. The sign has been owned and operated by Crestview Paint and Body in its current location for the past 10 years. Wayne Thompson, an employee of Crestview Paint and Body, testified that he works at the Ferdon location periodically. He meets customers at the location as needed, an average of two times per month. An employee was initially assigned to work full-time at the concierge location, but the position was reduced to part-time, and eventually eliminated. Senida Oglesby, a former customer of Crestview Paint and Body, testified that she received concierge service at the Ferdon Boulevard location. She took her vehicle to the location and it was transferred to the main location for completion of service. However, Ms. Oglesby stated she was last at the business approximately 3 to 4 years ago. Mr. Lowe testified that he completed an inspection of a vehicle at the concierge location on an undetermined date. Respondent asserts that its investigator visited the Ferdon Boulevard location on February 7, 2017; April 17, 2017; and May 15, 2017, and observed no business activity and concluded there was no business being conducted on behalf of Crestview Paint and Body at the location. The credible evidence demonstrates that there was no legitimate business activity being conducted on behalf of Crestview Paint and Body at the Ferdon Boulevard location. Ferdon Boulevard is a federal-aid primary highway subject to Department permitting in accordance with chapter 479. Crestview Paint and Body has never requested or received a permit for the display of outdoor advertising at the Ferdon Boulevard location. In 2015, Crestview Paint and Body leased Bay 101 of the Ferdon Boulevard location to a vape and smoke shop. The header signs positioned above the units numbered 101, 103, and 104 had signs for the vape and smoke shop. There was no header sign above unit 102. Mr. Collins placed a Notice sticker on the Crestview Paint and Body sign located at Ferdon Boulevard. On April 18, 2017, a written copy of the Notice was sent to Crestview Paint and Body at the James Lee Boulevard location. In preparing for the hearing, Billy Benson, a Department outdoor advertising field administrator, discovered that the sign appeared to be partially on the property owned by Crestview Paint and Body and partially on the Department’s right-of-way. The Department’s right-of-way is defined in section 334.03(21), Florida Statutes, as land in which the Department owns the fee or has an easement devoted to or required for use as a transportation facility. At the sign’s location, the right-of-way extended 50 feet to the right and 47 feet to the left of the centerline of Ferdon Boulevard. Mr. Collins again visited the Ferdon Boulevard location along with Sam Rudd. Mr. Collins and Mr. Rudd located survey markers to the north and south of the sign establishing the Department’s right-of-way line extending 10 feet beyond the edge of the sidewalk. The front edge of the sign began at two feet beyond the edge of the sidewalk and the back edge of the sign was 12 feet beyond the sidewalk. A survey conducted by a Department survey crew in November 2017, confirmed that 7.8 feet of the sign was located within the Department’s right-of-way and 2.6 feet of the sign was on Petitioner’s property. On September 20, 2017, the Department issued an Amended Notice of Violation–Illegally Erected Sign, noting that in addition to being an unpermitted sign in violation of section 479.105, the sign was located within the Department’s right-of- way in violation of sections 479.11(8) and 337.407. On September 20, 2017, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for Continuance, based on the recently discovered information and the sudden death of Mr. Lowe’s father. The motion provided: This matter involves an unpermitted sign in Okaloosa County. The department recently surveyed the sign’s location and determined the sign is within the Department’s right of way. Consequently, the department is issuing an amended notice of violation citing section 337.407 and 479.107, Florida Statutes, in addition to the initial reason for the violation based on section 479.105, Florida Statutes. The Department believes it is in the interest of judicial economy to have all charges determined in a single hearing. The Petitioner has indicated additional time will be needed to respond to the notice of violation as amended. Petitioner contends that it objected to the Department’s amendment of the Notice initially filed in this matter. While the Department did not properly file a Motion to Amend its Notice, there was no showing that Respondent was prejudiced by the Department's failure to comply with all requirements of the statute. Assuming arguendo there was prejudice, any prejudice alleged by Petitioner was cured. Petitioner agreed to the continuance, which stated the amendment of the Notice as a basis for the continuance. Further, Petitioner had more than 60 days to conduct discovery regarding the new allegations and had sufficient time to prepare for the hearing.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation enter a final order finding that Petitioner’s sign was erected and maintained on the Department’s right-of-way. Further, the final order should find that Petitioner is not entitled to an exemption for an on-premises sign. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Dixie Dan Powell, Esquire Powell Injury Law, P.A. 602 South Main Street Crestview, Florida 32536 (eServed) Susan Schwartz, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 (eServed) Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Michael J. Dew, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Erik Fenniman, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Larry Brummitt owned a sign on U.S. 90 in Greenville, Florida advertising Country Corner for which he held a permit for seven or eight years. U.S. 90 is a federal-aid primary highway. Mr. Brummitt desired to rebuild and relocate this sign a short distance from its authorized location and, to insure he did things properly, sought advice both from the advertising sign inspectors at Lake City and from the State Administrator of the Outdoor Advertising Section in Tallahassee. At both places he was told that be could not get an application for a new sign approved until his existing sign was removed because the new sign would violate the spacing requirements of Rule 14D-10.06(b)3, Florida Administrative Code while the existing sign was up; that an application would not be accepted while the former sign was standing; that the policy of the Department, when conflicting interests desired to erect signs where only one could be erected, was the person whose application was first received would be approved. The Department's long-standing policy, which was memorialized in a memorandum to all District Outdoor Advertising Sign Administrators in 1978, is that where conflicting applications for signs are received, the first submitted will be approved. Relying upon this information, Petitioner prepared his application, removed the old sign, and at 10:00 a.m. on 2 June 1980 presented his application to Respondent for a permit to erect his replacement sign. On 24 March 1980 American Sign and Indicator Company first approached Respondent's sign inspector to inquire about erecting a time and temperature sign for the Bank of Greenville. They were told that a permit for such a sign could not be issued because it would be within 500 feet of the Country Corner sign and would violate the spacing requirements unless Brummit's sign was first moved. At 1400 hours on 2 June 1980 American Sign and Indicator Company presented an application at the Lake City Headquarters of Respondent for a permit to erect a time and temperature sign at approximately the same location earlier requested by Brummitt. In his letter of 11 June 1980 the District Administrator, Outdoor Advertising, in Lake City advised Mr. Brummitt that his application was being disapproved and of his right to petition for an administrative hearing within 14 days or the denial would become final. As reasons for denying the application the letter stated: The application indicates the proposed location would be within 500 feet if a proposed time and temperature display to be erected by the Bank of Greenville in the County of Madison. The Bank of Greenville has been dealing in good faith with the Department to erect this display since January 5th, 1980. After obtaining the necessary criteria and additional expenses accrued, the Department feels the bank should be allowed to erect the display, because we feel they were the first applicant. When questioned by the Hearing Officer how Respondent "reasoned" the bank's application was received prior to Petitioner's application, the District Sign Inspector acknowledged that he had discussed these applications with the Chief Right-of-Way Agent in District 2, Mr. Bielling, under whose supervision the Outdoor Advertising Section comes, that Mr. Bielling is his boss and tells him what to do (Tr. p. 24-25) and that as far as the sign inspector is concerned, Mr. Bielling has the prerogative to change DOT policy.
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 99-4902T, whether the outdoor sign bearing permit AF330 was a permitted, nonconforming sign that was destroyed and cannot be rebuilt. As to DOAH Case No. 00-0398T, whether the outdoor sign bearing permit AF330 was illegally rebuilt. As to DOAH Case No. 99-4903T, whether the outdoor sign bearing permit BF075 was a permitted, nonconforming sign that was destroyed and cannot be rebuilt. As to DOAH Case No. 00-0397T, whether the outdoor sign bearing permit BF075 was illegally rebuilt.
Findings Of Fact Respondent 1/ is the owner of two outdoor advertising signs, both of which are located in Indian River County, Florida, adjacent to Interstate 95. Both signs were erected in 1971 pursuant to sign tag numbers AF330 and BF075, respectively. Sign A is located .49 miles south of milepost 153. Sign B is located .67 miles south of milepost 155. Section 479.01(14), Florida Statutes, defines the term "nonconforming sign" as follows: (14) "Nonconforming sign" means a sign which was lawfully erected but which does not comply with the land use, setback, size, spacing, and lighting provisions of state or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance passed at a later date or a sign which was lawfully erected but which later fails to comply with state or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance due to changed conditions. When the signs were erected in 1971, the area in which both signs are located was a part of unincorporated Indian River County. In 1990, the area in which both signs are located was annexed into the City of Fellsmere, Florida. Prior to the annexation, the area was zoned by Indian River County under the agricultural designation. That zoning designation has not been changed by the City of Fellsmere and the area remained zoned agricultural at the time of the final hearing. At all times relevant to this proceeding an outdoor advertising sign has not been an allowable use in an area zoned agricultural. There is an outdoor advertising sign less than 1,000 feet south of sign B, and there is an outdoor advertising sign less than 1,000 feet north of sign B. Both of these other signs are on the same side of the Interstate as sign B. When sign B was erected in 1971, the spacing requirements for signs along an Interstate Highway was 1000 feet, meaning that a proposed sign could not be within 1000 feet of an existing sign. Since 1984, Section 479.07(9)(a), Florida Statutes, has provided that outdoor advertising signs along an Interstate Highway must be at least 1500 feet apart. When initially constructed both sign A and sign B consisted of six wooden poles and wooden stringers. In October 1999, both sign A and sign B were destroyed by a hurricane. The hurricane knocked sign A completely down, the stringers were damaged, and all of the poles were snapped at ground level. Similarly, the hurricane knocked sign B completely down, the stringers were damaged, and four of the six poles were snapped at ground level. On October 29, 1999, Petitioner issued the Notices of Violation that serve as the basis for DOAH Case No. 99-4902T and DOAH Case No. 99-4903T. Both Notices alleged that the respective sign has been destroyed and may not be re-erected. 2/ Subsequent to the damage to sign A, Respondent erected another sign at the same location as that previously permitted for sign A. The new structure also consisted of six wooden poles and wooden stringers. Respondent attached permit tag AF330 to that structure. On December 8, 1999, Petitioner issued the Notice of Violation that serves as the basis for DOAH Case No. 00-0398T. That Notice of Violation asserts that the rebuilt sign is illegal and must be removed. Subsequent to the damage to sign B, Respondent erected another sign at the same location as that previously permitted for sign B. The new structure also consisted of six wooden poles and wooden stringers. Respondent attached permit tag BF075 to that structure. On December 8, 1999, Petitioner issued the Notice of Violation that serves as the basis for DOAH Case No. 00-0397T. That Notice of Violation asserts that the rebuilt sign is illegal and must be removed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order requiring the removal of each sign at issue in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2000, 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 17th day of July, 2000.
Findings Of Fact The facts here involved are not in dispute. In 1966 Petitioner leased the property adjacent to Cypress Street in Tampa and erected a structure thereon on the 1-275 3.6 miles west of 1-4, containing signs facing both east and west. By application dated 20 October 1977 (Exhibits 1 and 2) Petitioner applied for permits for these signs. The applications were disapproved because of spacing. Likewise, on 20 October 1977, Petitioner submitted application for a permit for a sign on the 1-4 2.9 miles east of U.S. 41 with a copy of the lease dated 1967. This sign is located in Tampa and the application was also disapproved because of spacing. Both of these locations are zoned commercial and are within the corporate limits of Tampa, Florida. The structure on which the signs shown on Exhibits 1 and 2 were erected was built in 1968 and the sign involved in Exhibit 3 was built in 1967. The signs for which a permit was requested in Exhibits 1 and 2 is located 325 feet north of a permitted structure owned by Tampa Outdoor Advertising, Inc. on the same side of the street and facing in the same direction. The sign for which a permit was requested in Exhibit 3 is 275 feet west of a permitted sign facing the same direction and on the same side of the street which is owned by Foster and Kleiser. No appeal was taken from these disapprovals, but by applications dated June 19, 1979, Petitioner in Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 reapplied for permits for the same signs that had been disapproved in 1977. These applications were also disapproved because of spacing. The I-4 and the I-275 are part of the Interstate Highway system.
