Findings Of Fact U.S. 1 is a federal-aid primary highway and, in the vicinity of University Boulevard, is a divided highway, with parkway between north-and- southbound lanes. University Boulevard (SR 109) is not a federal-aid primary highway. Petitioner holds a lease on the property on which the proposed sign is to be erected and, in fact, already has a structure on this site and a permit for a north-facing sign on this structure. The proposed sign meets all DOT requirements except spacing. The structure on which the proposed sign is to be displayed is located on the east side of U.S. 1, 125 feet north of the intersection with University Boulevard. Lamar Dean Outdoor Advertising Company was issued a permit for a 14 by 48 foot sign along the east side of University Boulevard, 150 feet south of the intersection with U.S. 1. This sign faces west. That application for permit (Exhibit 8) shows the type highway to be U.S. 1, a federal-aid primary highway. A sign located on University Boulevard in Jacksonville which was not visible from a federal-aid primary highway would not require a DOT permit. This Lamar structure, which carries a Jack Bush-Toyota South copy, can easily be seen by persons in vehicles travelling on U.S. 1 and it is on the same side of U.S. 1 and within 500 feet of Petitioner's proposed sign. The Department of Transportation's (DOT) inspectors maintain inventories of all permitted signs. The criteria used by all DOT sign inspectors is to log any sign that can be seen and read from the primary highway. Actually, the Jack Bush sign can be seen by both north-and-southbound traffic on U.S. 1 when in the vicinity of University Boulevard but the northbound traffic passes closer to the sign. It is therefore carried by DOT as a south-facing sign.
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to an order, requiring the removal of two signs involved herein which are owned by Respondent, pursuant to the Highway Beautification Act or Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and if so, whether or not the Respondent is entitled to compensation from Petitioner for the value of such signs.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony adduced at the hearing, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that the Respondent, National Advertising Company, is the owner of certain outdoor advertising signs located in the City of Jacksonville, Florida. The parties also stipulated that Interstate 95 is part of the interstate highway system; that the two signs in question can be seen from Interstate 95 and the signs are located within 660 feet of the road's right-of-way. The parties also stipulated that only the poles which are used to erect the signs were in place prior to midnight on December 8, 1971. It appears that the poles were erected sometime during 1968, and that faces were added to the poles during the spring of 1972. The signs are located at .43 miles North of Pecan Park Road and .73 miles North of Pecan Park Road, respectively, adjacent to Interstate percent Highway 95. The Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, takes the position that since the faces were not on the signs prior to midnight on December 8, 1981, pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, it is entitled to the entry of an order requiring removal of the signs by Respondent without any compensation for the signs whatsoever. Respondent, through counsel, moved that the hearing be dismissed on the ground that the Division of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction to hear such matters, in that the signs may be removed only by proceeding under Florida's eminent domain law. 2/ It is undisputed that the signs involved are located within prohibited distances as provided in Chapter; 479.11, Florida Statutes. They are, therefore, a nonconforming structure as provided for within the terms of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. In view of the stipulated facts, the structures involved herein do not constitute signs within the meaning of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, since prior to midnight on December 8, 1971, all that existed of those structures were poles. See A. W. Lee, Jr. v. Reubin O'D. Askew, Case No.2-1798 (2nd DCA, 1979). Within the next year, however, Respondent erected advertising displays which had informative contents that were visible from the main traveled way. At that point, the structures herein became nonconforming outdoor advertising signs and were thereafter required to comply with pertinent State law in effect on that date.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, upon removal of the signs, remit to the Respondent compensation in the amount of the actual replacement value of the materials used in the signs. It is further recommended that compensation be made pursuant to the State's eminent domain procedures. 3/ RECOMMENDED this, 25th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 25th day of September, 1981.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is maintaining signs illegally as alleged in a Notice of Violation issued to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), is the state agency that regulates outdoor advertising signs located within 660 feet of the State Highway System, interstate, or federal-aid primary system, as provided in Section 479.105, Florida Statutes (2008). On January 3, 2008, DOT issued Notice of Violation T117MB alleging that eight signs on the Shiver Property (Shiver) in Florida City, Florida, were erected illegally, and requiring the owner to remove or to pay DOT to remove the signs. There is no dispute that the permits to erect the signs have not been issued by DOT. The signs are mounted on top of the Shiver building located at 12 Northeast 3rd Street, Florida City, Dade County, Florida, and are from 16 to 27 feet apart from each other. The property is managed by Roy Dan Shiver (Mr. Shiver) who operates Shiver Glass and Mirror Company at the same location. Other tenants are the Frito Lay Company, a tax preparation service, and a real estate business. One of the signs on the Shiver building advertises for "Captain Shon's Seafood Grill & Pub Fish and Chips MM 103 - Key Largo." Another sign reads "The Big Chill Waterfront Dining 24 miles to Sports Bar Tiki Bar Pool MM 104 - Key Largo - Bayside." A third sign advertises "Sunset - Seafood Marker 88." Captain Shon's Seafood Grill & Pub Fish and Chips, Big Chill Waterfront Dinning, and Sunset - Seafood Marker 88 do not operate businesses on the Shiver property. The remaining five signs are various advertisements for The Shell Man including the following: "The Shell M Windchi T-shirt 32 miles on left * 70 on" (with apparent damage cutting off some of the words); "The Shell Man Unique Gifts * Full Service * Gas Station * Free Shell Necklace 32 miles on left;" "The Shell Man Take Home A pet! Hermit Crabs 32 miles on left * 70 miles on left;" "The Shell Man Come Blow A Conch Horn 32 miles on left;" and "The Shell Man Shark Necklaces Jaws & Gifts 32 miles on left * 70 miles on left." Mr. Shiver testified that The Shell Man has operated a business in the Shiver building for more than seven years, and currently operates in an office shared with Mr. Shiver after having moved from a separate office that is now occupied by a real estate company. His testimony regarding the length of time The Shell Man has operated a business at that location is not supported by the one lease he has with The Shell Man, dated January 1, 2008, with no other evidence of prior agreements. According to Mr. Shiver, The Shell Man operates a business by having brochures and samples of shells, that "they could sell" or "could give them away," in the Shiver office, but The Shell Man has no sign on the door and its owner comes and goes with no regular hours. Petitioner's claim that The Shell Man operates a business on the premises is not supported by the credible evidence. In response to questions concerning the zoning and any special designations for the area in which the Shiver building is located, Mr. Shiver was "sure it's zoned commercial," believed it was part of a community redevelopment area, and testified that it was "very possible" that it is in an empowerment zone. The signs on the Shiver building in Dade County all advertise for businesses located in Monroe County, and are oriented facing north to be seen by traffic heading south. Mr. Shiver testified that drivers on U.S. 1, a federal-aid primary highway, have to turn their heads and look back to see the signs on his building. A permitted billboard north of the Shiver property has two signs on it, one faces north and the other faces east. Petitioner takes the position that, (1) the eight signs are not on U.S. 1 but on the Florida Turnpike off-ramp leading onto U.S. 1; (2) that the evidence does not clearly show that the signs are within 660 feet of and visible from a federal-aid primary highway or interstate; (3) that the signs are not too close together or to the nearest permitted billboard that has signs facing in different directions; (4) that the local government, not DOT, has the authority to regulate the signs under an agreement with the federal government; and (5) sign regulations are inapplicable in the "distressed area." Mack Barnes, the DOT outdoor advertising inspector, who reported the possible sign violations to DOT testified that the signs are approximately 150 feet from the state right-of-way and are visible from U.S. 1. Mr. Barnes took a picture of the building with the signs to submit with his report. He could only submit one or two pictures with his report and to get the best vantage point, he took that picture from the Turnpike off ramp. Mark Johnson, the DOT regional advertisement inspector, also photographed the signs on the Shiver building. Like Mr. Barnes, he took some photographs from the Turnpike ramp, but he took one, Respondent's Exhibit 7, while he was standing on southbound U.S. 1. That picture shows the Shiver building and five of the signs on top of it. Based on Mr. Johnson's measurements, the signs are from 16-to-27 feet apart, and the distance to the nearest permitted billboard, with tag numbers BC367 and CG754, is 445 feet. The measurements were taken with a Nightstar Distance Measuring Instrument and are more exact than an earlier DOT estimate of 491 feet based on the milepost locations. On December 31, 2007, Mr. Johnson checked each door of the Shiver building to see if any of the businesses advertised on the signs were operating on the premises and they were not. He did not go inside any of the offices.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order finding that the eight signs that are the subject of Notice of Violation T117MB are a public or private nuisance, and requiring that they be removed as provided in Subsection 479.105(1)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia A. Henderson, Esquire Cynthia A. Henderson, P.A. 411 Meridian Place Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Kimberly Clark Menchion, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 James C. Myers, Agency Clerk Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Stephanie Kopelouso, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Alexis M. Yarbrough, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether the Outdoor Advertising Sign owned by the Petitioner qualifies for permitting as a non-conforming sign.
Findings Of Fact On August 5, 1996, the Department issued a notice of Violation of an illegally erected sign to Clarence E. Adams. The sign in question was located 9.240 miles south of the line between Georgia and Florida on real property that is now and always has been zoned agricultural. The property upon which the sign is located was purchased by Clarence Adams and his brother, Dennis C. Adams, in 1976. The sign was on the property when they purchased the property; and, although they did not own the sign, they have derived continually revenue from the rental of the property upon which the sign is located since 1976. The sign has been maintained in it present form since 1976 by its owner(s). The subject sign had never been cited previously by the Department for violation of the outdoor advertising statutes. The subject sign is located at mile post 9.240. The sign is not in the Department’s right of way. The sign is not a danger to the traveling public. The sign is located adjacent to and can be seen from the main traveled way of Interstate 75 which is a federal highway that is open to the public. The current owner, Ray Sheffield, testified and did not claim to have a valid permit. Clarence Adams admitted that he had never applied for such a permit. The Department proved by testimony and evidence that the subject sign does not have a valid outdoor advertising permit, and there is no record by the Department that it ever had a valid permit. Clarence Adams proved that the sign was at its current location in 1976 when Adams and his brother purchased the property. Adams proved that a sign was in that location as early as 1975. The Department and the Federal Highway Administration entered into an agreement in 1972 that prohibited the erection of outdoor advertising signs along federal highways in areas zoned agricultural. The Petitioner did not prove that the sign was erected prior to the agreement between the Department and the Federal Highway Administration in 1972.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order finding: That the outdoor advertising sign, which is the subject of the notice of violation and which is located at mile post 9.240, does not have a permit, is in violation of the law, and is not qualified to be grand-fathered in and permitted; and That the owners of the real property upon which the subject sign is located and putative owner of the sign, Ray Sheffield, be directed to remove the sign within 30 days; and That the owners of the real property be advised that, if the subject sign is not removed, the Department will seek an order of a court of competent jurisdiction directing the removal of the sign and assessing costs for obtaining the court’s order and the costs of removing the sign. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1997 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Scaff, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer O Jasper, Florida 32052 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(6)(b), which provides for revocation of outdoor advertising permits for nonconforming signs that are abandoned or discontinued, is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" as alleged by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the outdoor advertising program in accordance with chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The Department adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-10, which provides for the permitting and control of outdoor advertising signs visible to and within controlled areas of interstates and federal-aid highways. Rule 14-10.007 provides regulations for nonconforming signs. Section 479.01(17), Florida Statutes, defines nonconforming signs as signs that were lawfully erected but which do not comply with later enacted laws, regulations, or ordinances on the land use, setback, size, spacing and lighting provisions of state or local law, or fail to comply with current regulations due to changed conditions. Rule 14-10.007 provides in part that: (6) A nonconforming sign may continue to exist so long as it is not destroyed, abandoned, or discontinued. "Destroyed," "abandoned," and "discontinued" have the following meanings: * * * (b) A nonconforming sign is "abandoned" or "discontinued" when a sign structure no longer exists at the permitted location or the sign owner fails to operate and maintain the sign, for a period of 12 months or longer. Signs displaying bona fide public interest messages are not "abandoned" or "discontinued" within the meaning of this section. The following conditions shall be considered failure to operate and maintain the sign: Signs displaying only an "available for lease" or similar message, Signs displaying advertising for a product or service which is no longer available, Signs which are blank or do not identify a particular product, service, or facility. Carter is licensed to engage in the business of outdoor advertising in Florida and holds an outdoor advertising permit for a nonconforming outdoor advertising sign bearing Tag No. AS 228. The outdoor advertising sign for the referenced tag number is located in Lee County, Florida ("Carter Sign"). On February 22, 2010, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit to Carter for sign bearing Tag No. AS 228. The notice advises that "this nonconforming sign has not displayed advertising copy for 12 months or more, and is deemed abandoned, pursuant to s. 14-10.007(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code." Petitioner Nissi is licensed to engage in the business of outdoor advertising in Florida and holds outdoor advertising signs bearing Tag Nos. BK 731 and BK 732, which signs are located in Pasco County, and BN 604, BN 605, AR 261, AR 262, AT 485 and AT 486, which signs are located in Hernando County ("Nissi Signs"). In June and July 2013, the Department issued notices of intent to revoke sign permits, pursuant to rule 14-10.007(6)(b), based on the signs not displaying advertising for 12 months or longer. The notice issued to Nissi advised that the Department deemed the signs as having been abandoned. Carter and Nissi, as owners of nonconforming signs receiving violations under rule 14-10.007(6)(b), have standing and timely challenged the rule in dispute herein.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, T & L Management, Inc., was issued permits numbered AK081-12 and AK082-12 on or about August 30, 1983. These permits were for the erection of signs on the north side of I-10, approximately .4 mile west of SR 297, in Escambia County, Florida. They were issued because of the proximity of a welding business adjacent to the proposed sign location. The Respondent submitted the applications for these permits, and designated on the applications that the sign location would be in a commercial or industrial unzoned area within 800 feet of a business. On each of these applications the Respondent certified that the signs to be erected would meet all requirements of Chapter 479 of the Florida Statutes. Prior to the issuance of these permits, the subject site was inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, who approved the applications because of the existence of what she believed to be a welding shop nearby the proposed sign location. This inspector was looking for a welding shop because she had been informed that a welding shop was located there. What she saw was some welding being done on the property where the welding business was supposed to be. This could be seen from the interstate. Apparently because the inspector expected to find a welding business near the proposed sign site, she concluded that such a business existed there, and the applications were approved. However, the occupant of the subject property has lived there for 37 years, and he has never operated a welding business. He has only done welding on this site once since 1980, when he welded a bumper onto a truck in his barn. The photographs which were received in evidence show his property, and the general appearance of this area is residential or rural in nature, and not commercial. It is visible to traffic on I-10. The Department's inspector testified that she used a pair of binoculars to enable her to see a small sign reading "welding" on the property where she saw welding being done. However, the property owner denied that any such sign was on his property. Other witnesses presented by the Respondent also testified that they saw welding being done, but this issue has been resolved by accepting the testimony of the witness who lived on the property and who did the welding on the one occasion, as being the more credible and trustworthy evidence. The adjacent property is leased by Pensacola Outdoor Advertising. This property has a building on it which bears a small sign reading "Pensacola Outdoor Adv." and the telephone number. This building was leased by Pensacola Outdoor Advertising in 1984, and was not used for any business purpose when the permit applications were submitted. This property is also visible from I-10. When the Respondent applied for the subject permits there was no business activity being conducted within 800 feet of the proposed sign location. Therefore, the Department's inspector made a mistake in approving the Respondent's applications for this site. In October of 1984 the Department issued its violation notices advising the Respondent that the subject sign permits were being revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Harry Moody Signs, owns a sign which was erected in December of 1981 without a state permit. This sign is located 45 feet from the edge of the pavement or curb line of U.S. 27/301/441, and 32 feet from C-434 (Alternate 441) inside the corporate limits of Belleview, in Marion County, Florida. U.S. 27/301/441 is a federal-aid primary highway open to traffic, and C-484 is a non-controlled road. U.S. 27/301/441 is considered to be a north/ south highway; however, it runs almost east and west in Belleview where it intersects C-484, which runs generally northeast and southwest at the point of intersection. The Respondent's sign is located northeast of U.S. 27/301/441, facing a westerly direction, and is visible to traffic from the southbound lane of this controlled highway. The sign in question is approximately 298 feet from a permitted sign (permit no. 947-6) which is also situated on the northeast side of U.S. 27/301/141. Although the Respondent's witness testified that the sign in question is more parallel to the primary highway than perpendicular to it, and that the permitted sign is perpendicular to this highway, both signs are visible from U.S. 27/301/441, and the copy on the Respondent's sign can be read from a distance of 300 to 400 feet away, at least. The Petitioners witness testified that the Respondent's sign stands at an angle of approximately 45 degrees from the permitted sign, and becomes visible at a distance of 929 feet in the southbound lane of U.S. 27/301/441. Additionally, the subject sign first begins to come into view on Alternate 441 (C-484) at a distance of 470 feet. At a distance of 500 feet on Alternate 441 the sign is not visible because a building located close to the road blocks the view. The measurements of distances on Alternate 441 were made by using a calibrated hand wheel on the side of the road. The distances on U.S. 27/301/441 were measured by using a calibrated electric odometer in an automobile. The Department of Transportation permits, regulates and controls signs within city limits that are adjacent to both controlled roads and non-controlled roads when the signs are visible from the main traveled way of the controlled road (federal-aid primary highway). The Respondent applied for a permit after the sign had been erected, and this application was denied because the Respondent's sign was located 298 feet from a permitted sign, causing a spacing violation. The permitted sign is also owned by the Respondent, and this permitted sign is being used as an on- premise sign. However, the state permit is currently in effect, and the Respondent plans to maintain the sign as a permitted sign. The Respondent receives revenues from rental of the permitted sign, and the Respondent pays the property owner for use of the permitted sign's location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter its Final Order finding the Respondent's sign which is the subject of this proceeding to be in violation of the applicable statutes and rules, and ordering its removal. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this the 1st day of November, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Paul Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the signs of Respondent, Cannon Motel, should be removed for violation of Chapter 499, Florida Statutes, improper setback and no permit to erect the signs.
Findings Of Fact Cannon Motels, Inc. was served with a violation notice on October 18, 1976. The alleged violation was that the Cannon Motel signs were in violation of the state statute inasmuch as they had been erected without first obtaining a permit from the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, and they violate the setback requirements of Chapter 479. Petitioner, by certified letter dated November 11, 1976, requested an administrative hearing. Respondent moved to continue the hearing on the grounds of improper venue, lack of jurisdiction and failure by Petitioner to follow the technical rules. The motion was denied for the reason that the venue was proper being in the district in which a permit for an outdoor advertising sign must be obtained; the Hearing Officer has jurisdiction under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the parties were fully advised of the issue to be heard. The subject signs each read "Cannon Motel." One is located one-half mile west of State Road 85 facing Interstate 10 and the other is located 1.3 riles east of State Road 85 facing Interstate 10. The sign east of State Road 85 is 30 by 12 and is approximately 18 feet from the nearest edge of the right of way. The sign that is west of State Read 85 is approximately 38 feet from the nearest edge of the right of way. Both signs were erected within 660 feet of the federal aid primary road without applying for or securing a permit from the Florida Department of Transportation. At some time prior to the hearing but after the erection of the signs, the area in which the sign located west of State Road 85 was erected was annexed by Crescent City, Florida. That area in which the signs are located is unzoned by the city and zoned agriculture by Okaloosa County.
Recommendation Remove the subject signs within ten (10) days of the filing of the Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James E. Moore, Esquire Moore and Anchors Post Office Box 746 Niceville, Florida 32578
Findings Of Fact On June 22, 1981, Lamar Advertising Company applied to the Department of Transportation for a permit to erect a sign facing east, 0.3 mile east of the intersection of Interstate 10 and U.S. 90, outside the city limits of Pensacola, in Escambia County, Florida. Interstate 10 in Escambia County is part of the Federal Interstate Highway System. Attached to the application was a sketch showing the proposed sign location to be in the area between the water and U.S. 90, on the south side of Interstate 10. At this interchange, all access roads are west of U.S. 90, north and south of I-10. Because the Department did not have an inspector on duty in Escambia County, the field inspection of the proposed location was made by the Outdoor Advertising Supervisor for the Third District. He observed the area and found it to be on a downgrade with underbrush, making distance sighting difficult. Using the 0.3 mile location indicated on the application, and seeing no access ramps on the east side of U.S. 90, he considered the proposed location to be far enough from the interchange, but no measurements were actually made. As a result of this inspection, the permit application was approved on June 25, 1981. Shortly thereafter, while driving through the area heading east, the supervisor noted that 0.3 mile from U.S. 90 measured with his automobile speedometer would place the sign out in the bay. On July 21, 1981, this supervisor telephoned Lamar Advertising Company and advised that the permit had been issued in error. He met with the company on the following day, and after this meeting he sent a letter to Lamar Advertising Company confirming that the permit had been issued in error, and requesting its return. Lamar Advertising Company did not return the permit tag, and subsequently erected the sign facing east with the advertising copy not visible from the access ramp. The subject sign was erected in the area where the supervisor thought the sign would be, and at the approximate location shown on the sketch submitted with the application indicating a location 0.3 mile east of the nearest intersection. During a sign inventory conducted by the Department's inspector for Escambia County on August 28, 1981, the inspector observed that the undergrowth and trees had been cleared from the site, but that no sign had yet been erected. The manager of the Pensacola office of Lamar Advertising Company testified that the sign was erected during the last week in August of 1981, and that it was completely in place on the first day of September. The Department's supervisor observed that the sign had been recently erected sometime between the latter part of August and the first part of September. At a later date, this inspector was asked by the supervisor to check the location for the purpose of issuing a violation notice. On January 18, 1982, the inspector visited the site and made measurements. The sign is located approximately 95 feet from the limited access fence on I-10 and approximately 360 feet from the Exxon station on U.S. 90, and is 35 to 60 feet from the point of widening of the interchange, instead of 0.3 mile east of the interchange as the application stated. The advertising copy on the sign can be read by traffic traveling west on I-10. As a result of the measurements taken on this visit, notice of violation which is the subject of this proceeding was issued. The local manager of Lamar Advertising Company testified that materials for the sign in question had been purchased about the middle of July, and an advertising contract with Holiday Inn was executed on July 13, 1981, for the subject location. This contract has a substitute provision in paragraph 6 of the Standard Conditions, which states: . . .in the event Lamar is unable to deliver any portion of the service required in this contract. . .this contract shall not terminate. Credit shall be allowed to Advertiser at the standard rates of Lamar for such space or service for the period during which such space or service shall not be furnished. . .Lamar may discharge this credit, at its option, by furnishing advertising service on substitute spaces to be reasonably approved by Advertiser. . .
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the sign owned by Lamar Advertising Company facing east on the south side of Interstate 10, east of U.S. 90, in Escambia County, Florida, be removed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S.58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 P. Michael Patterson, Esquire 905 West Moreno Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the subject signs of Respondent should be removed.
Findings Of Fact A notice of violation and a notice to show cause was sent to the Respondent, Harry Moody Signs and delivered on September 13, 1977 alleging violations of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes and violations of Rule 14-1O.4. The violation notice was marked Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 and entered into evidence. The notice cited six signs and for clarity the Hearing Officer numbered the signs from one through six on the violation notice. Testimony and evidence was taken on each sign as follows: Sign One: This sign was withdrawn from consideration by consent of both parties. Sign Two: The parties agreed that a permit would be issued for this sign within the city limits of Weeki-Wachee, Florida providing it was removed from the state's right-of-way and moved back some 51 feet. Sign Three: This double faced sign has no permit. The sign consists of a small sign stating "This is Beacon Country" which is attached to and on the top of a large sign that states "See ten different models, Beacon Woods, Beacon Homes by Hoeldtke"; on the poles at the bottom of the signs is a third sign reading "P G A Golf-Restaurant- Shopping Turn Right." Sign Four: This sign has an expired 1972 permit tag attached to it. Sign Five: This sign has no current permit tag attached thereto. Sign Six: This sign has no current permit or 1974 tag attached thereto. The Respondent admitted that this sign was in violation of the outdoor advertising law. The Respondent disclaimed any interest in Sign One and the Petitioner moved to withdraw the charges. Sign Two is located on the state's right-of-way and is within the city limits of Weeki-Wachee. It was stipulated that the sign would be removed or relocated within 20 days from date of the hearing but the Respondent has not so notified the Hearing Officer of removal. The double faced sign marked as Sign Three was the subject of argument by both attorneys who requested to submit & memorandum of law as to whether the sign was in violation of Section 479.16(3). No memorandum of law has been received from either attorney although the 30 days allotted to submit said memorandum has expired. Signs marked Four and Five have no current permit tag attached thereto. The Respondent admitted that there was no current permit for Sign number Six and the sign was in violation. The parties agreed that the sign may not be eligible for a permit.
Recommendation Remove each of the subject signs designated; Sign Two, Three, Four, Five and Six. Invoke the penalties provided for by Section 479.18 to wit: "479.18 Penalties. - Any person, violating any provision of this chapter whether as principal, agent or employee, for which violation no other penalty is prescribed, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in Sec. 775.083; and such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each month during any portion of which any violation of this chapter is committed, continued or permitted. The existence of any advertising copy on any outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising sign or advertisement outside incorporated towns and cities shall constitute prima facie evidence that the said outdoor advertising sign or advertisement was constructed, erected, operated, used, maintained or displayed with the consent and approval and under the authority of the person whose goods or services are advertised thereon." DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 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: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William D. Rowland, Esquire 115 East Morse Blvd. Winter Park, Florida 32790
