Findings Of Fact On or about June 10, 1977, the Department issued permit number 2740-12 to the Respondent, Lamar Advertising Company, authorizing the erection of a sign on the east side of I-110, .4 mile north of SR 296 in Escambia County, Florida. On or about August 7, 1978, this permit was reported lost and the Department issued a replacement tag numbered AN498-35. The latter permit is the subject of this proceeding. Prior to the issuance of the original permit in 1977, the site was field inspected and approved by Department personnel. The Respondent's representative who submitted the permit application designated on this application that the sign location was in an unzoned area within 800 feet of a business. This representative also certified on the application that the sign to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The only commercial or industrial activity that was located within 600 feet of the right-of-way of I-110, and within 800 feet of the site where the Respondent's sign was to be erected, was a brick building which had been constructed in 1977 by Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising. This building contains 800 to 1,000 square feet, and it was used as a sketch office by Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising. One employee works inside doing art work, and three salesmen use the office to make telephone calls and pick up messages. The Salter building has been constructed without windows on the back side, which is the side facing the interstate. This building is not directly on the interstate, but is located on a street back off I-110 in an unzoned area containing houses and trailer homes. This area is residential in nature, and the Salter building is the only business in the immediate vicinity. The landscape along I-110 where the subject sign is located slopes upward from the interstate to where the Salter building stands, and the area between the interstate and the Salter building is covered with foliage. In the summer months the area between I-110 and the site of the Salter building is almost completely obscured by this foliage, but during the winter when the foliage has thinned a portion of the rear of the Salter building can be seen from the interstate. There is an area in front of and on the sides of the Salter building, away from the interstate, where cars can be parked. Salesmen, workmen and customers come and go daily, using these areas for parking. However, due to the slope of the ground between the Salter building and I-110, the interstate is at such a downward angle from the building that none of these activities can be seen from I-110. There is no sign on or around the Salter building to indicate that it contains a business, and there is nothing else about either the building or the area to identify the one as a business structure or the other as a commercial area. In summary, the Bill Salter building houses a business which is located with 660 feet of the interstate, and the subject sign is within 800 feet of this business, but there are no business activities that can be seen from the main- traveled way of I-110. This location is essentially the same now as it was in 1977 when the permit was issued. In October of 1984, the site was inspected by the Department's Right- of-Way Administrator who determined that the permit had been issued in error because there was no visible commercial activity within 800 feet of the sign. In November of 1984, the Department issued a Notice of Violation advising the Respondent that the subject permit was being revoked because the sign had not been erected in a zoned or unzoned commercial area.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit number AN 498-35 held by the Respondent, Lamar Advertising Company, authorizing a sign located on the east side of I-110, .4 mile north of SR 296 in Escambia County, Florida, be revoked, and the subject sign removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 14th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Robert P. Gaines, Esquire P. O. Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent has violated Sections 479.07(1),(4),(6) and 479.11(1),Florida Statutes. At the hearing, it was announced that the signs in question are owned by a partnership known as Henderson Signs, Don Henderson and Gene Henderson being partners thereof. It was stipulated that the above-captioned cases would be consolidated for hearing and that Henderson Signs had been notified of the violations and was prepared to proceed with a hearing. The stipulation was accepted by the hearing officer and the caption of the case amended to show Henderson Signs as Respondent.
Findings Of Fact 1. It was stipulated by the parties that the two signs in question are owned by Respondent and are located as indicated on Exhibit 3 as follows: The Circle D. Ranch sign is located 9/10 of a mile east of the east lane of State Highway 81 and 85 feet south of the right-of-way fence of Interstate Highway I- The Arrowhead Campsite sign is located 1.1 miles east of the east lane of State Highway 81 and 190 feet south of the right-of-way fence of Interstate Highway I-10 (Exhibits 1,2,3 & 4, Testimony of Williams, Jordan). No state permit tags are affixed to the signs and they are not located in a zoned or unzoned commercial area as determined by physical observation (Testimony of Mr. Williams). The signs are located outside any incorporated city or town (Exhibits 3 & 4, late-filed Composite Exhibit 5, Testimony of Mr. Williams, Mr. Jordan).
The Issue The Administrative Complaint in this cause charges that the subject sign violates Sections 479.071 and 479.021(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.09, Section 3, Florida Administrative Code, which is the same as Rule 14-10.06(b)2 (b), Florida Administrative Code, supra. The Respondent admits ownership of the outdoor advertising structure and that it does not bear a tag as required by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes; however, the Respondent asserts that the sign in question qualifies as an exception and is entitled to a tag pursuant to the provisions of Section 479.111, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner asserts that the sign does not qualify for a tag and stipulates that had the Respondent applied for a tag that said application would have been denied. The Respondent also contends that the sign is exempt from operation of the outdoor advertising law in all respects pursuant to the provisions of Section 479.16(1), Florida Statutes. Based upon the foregoing, the following issues of fact are raised: Is the subject sign an on-premises sign for purposes of the exemption stated in Section 479.16(1), Florida Statutes, and Is the sign located in an unzoned commercial or industrial area as defined by Section 479.111(2) and Rule 14- 10.06(b)(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, and Does the subject sign meet the spacing requirements set forth in Rule 14-10.06(b)(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the facts as found in paragraphs 1 through 10 below. The subject advertising structure is an advertising sign as defined by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code. The subject sign is located in Jackson County, Florida. The subject sign is not within the corporate city limits of any city or town. The subject sign is within 660 feet of Interstate 10. The subject sign is owned by the Respondent, Fuqua & Davis, Inc., a Florida corporation. The subject sign does not have a permit as required by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, Department of Transportation, would not issue a permit as required by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, for the subject sign. There is no zoning in Jackson County, Florida. Interstate 10 is an interstate highway as defined in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code, and said interstate highway was open for vehicular traffic at the time sign was erected. The subject sign is located at the interchange of State Road 71 and Interstate 10. In this location, there were three commercial enterprises located prior to the construction of Interstate 10. Two of these commercial enterprises, Malloy Wholesale Gladiola Farms and Grant Cabinet and Millworks, still exist and are identified on Petitioner's Exhibit 1, an aerial photograph. The third business was removed during the construction of the interchange. The area surrounding the interchange of State Road 71 and Interstate 10 is an unzoned commercial area. This finding is based upon the testimony of a real estate appraiser together with the businesses which are located in this area. These businesses include Malloy Wholesale Gladiola Farms, Grant Cabinet and Millworks, a retail grocery store, and a major regional truck center (truck- stop). The area surrounding the intersection of State Road 71 and Interstate 10 is unzoned commercial and the subject sign is located in such an area. The location of the subject sign is identified on Petitioner's Exhibit 1, an aerial photograph. The subject sign is located adjacent to an interchange on an interstate highway. It is not located on the premises of the business advertised. A diesel pump is located within 20 feet of the signs; however, the pump and sign are over 1,000 feet away from the advertised business on non- contiguous property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Final Order of the Department be issued requiring removal of the sign within thirty (30) days by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of November, 1984 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg., MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James J. Richardson, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Paul Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 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 28th day of November, 1984.
The Issue The issue for consideration in these cases is whether the Respondent's signs must be removed because of a failure to display advertising copy for a period of 12 months or longer.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, was the state agency responsible for the regulation of outdoor advertising along the state and federal highways in Florida. The Respondent, National Advertising Corporation, also doing business as Outdoor Advertising, owned numerous billboards placed adjacent to those highways. The Respondent's operation is subject to the jurisdiction of and regulation by the Petitioner. From some time in mid-1997 until his retirement from state employment on April 1, 1999, Eugene F. Casey served as a regulatory enforcement inspector for the Department. His territory included several counties in Southwest Florida including Collier County. Mr. Casey was familiar with the status of the highways and billboards in question as he visited the areas in which they were located as a part of his duties on a regular basis. The billboards in question, BL 516-35 and AV 929-35, were classified as non-conforming signs by the Department in accordance with Florida law because the highway sections where they are located had been designated as scenic highways, and because the signs did not conform to the zoning requirements of Collier County. However, had they displayed proper advertising material, they would have been permitted to be properly licensed and remain in place. Mr. Casey visited the sites of both billboards on April 1, 1998, and determined that neither displayed any advertising material. He returned to the sites on June 17, 1998 and on August 19, 1998, at which time he photographed the billboards. On neither occasion did the billboards display any advertising material. He went again on August 14, 1998 and on September 29, 1998, at which latter date he again photographed the billboards because they still displayed no advertising. Casey again visited the sites on October 29, 1998, November 15, 1998, and on December 4, 1998. On the last visit he again photographed the boards. No advertising was displayed on any of the visits. On his visits on January 13 and 25, 1999, he did not photograph the billboards but noticed they did not display advertising. On visits on March 23 and April 1, 1999, he photographed the billboards and neither displayed any advertising. On each of the visits he made to the billboard sites, between April 1, 1998 and April 1, 1999, Mr. Casey made a note of the visit in a log he kept, and on most, though not all visits, noted the absence of advertising. Had he discovered advertising on either billboard at any time during the year-long period he visited them, the presence of that advertising material would have satisfied the requirements of the governing rule, and he would have terminated the monitoring. However, according to Mr. Casey, no advertising material was displayed on either billboard over the year period of monitoring. Mr. Barnhardt, the Respondent's area real estate assistant, contends that a contract was entered into between 3M Media, Respondent's predecessor, and the Comfort Inn on the Bay, a motel, which called for advertising for the motel to be placed on the billboard bearing permit AV 929-35 (DOAH Case 99-2106T), on June 27, 1996, for three years from that date. However, Mr. Barnhardt also admitted that the contract did not run the full three years but was terminated early, and the advertising would have been removed when the contract was terminated. He could not state exactly when the termination took place, and the successor copy was put in place no earlier than April 30, 1999. That clearly leaves room for Mr. Casey's monitoring of the site to discover no advertising on the sign for a year or more. This particular sign is a two-sided sign. Advertising copy has consistently been displayed on the other side of the billboard which bears its own permit number. That side is not in issue. Counsel for Respondent attempted to indicate that Mr. Casey could not positively identify the signs he photographed and about which he testified as the offending signs. However, Mr. Casey indicated in both cases that on the signs he observed he could see the Department permits and could read the numbers thereon. No independent evidence was introduced to indicate that Mr. Casey's monitoring of both signs was inaccurate or mistaken, and it is found that both billboards did not display advertising materials for at least one year. Mr. Casey filled out both notices of violation involved herein but did not sign them. Consistent with Department practice, after the notices were prepared, he took them to his supervisor, Ms. Hall, who reviewed them and signed them. The notices also were reviewed by Mr. Dunsford, who was predecessor in office to Ms. Hall. Mr. Dunsford concluded that both notices of violation were supported by the evidence presented to him and were properly issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order revoking permits BL 516-35 and AV 929-35 and ordering their removal. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 1999, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly A. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Livingston & Reilly, P.A. Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 James C. Myers Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Dr. David B. Walrath is and was at the time of the events at issue a licensed veterinarian holding license number 001374 issued by the Board. DMSO is the common name for Diamethylsulfoxide. Dr. David B. Walrath caused various advertisements to be placed in the South Dade News Leader, a newspaper, to include one which was the subject of the Administrative Complaint which read: DMSO 16 ounce-$38.00 248-6536 The telephone number listed in the advertisement was that of English Plaza Animal Hospital, the professional address of the Respondent. DMSO was available for sale at English Plaza Animal Hospital at the price advertised. The data in the advertisement was true. No evidence was presented on the nature of DMSO, its uses, or whether it was approved for medical use on humans. Dr. Walrath did state the manufacturer represented DMSO to be a cure for animals but did not indicate what ailments it cured.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Dr. David B. Walrath be DISMISSED. DONE and ,ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, 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: James H. Gillis, esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shornstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles A. Hayes, Esquire 922 North Krome Avenue Homestead, Florida 33030 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Veterinary Medicine 130 North Monroe Street 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
The Issue Whether the outdoor advertising structures of the Petitioner, National Advertising Company, are in violation of F.S.A. 479.13 and 479.05.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, National Advertising Company, is the owner of two signs located on U.S. Highway 41, east of SR 840A which is known as the Turner River Road. The face on one side bears the copy of "Holiday Inn;" the face on the other side bears the copy of "African Safari." The Petitioner was cited on September 22, 1977, by the Department of Transportation for violation of Chapter 479.13 of the F.S.A. The real property upon which these structures are located was formerly owned by the Collier Company of Naples, Florida, who by letter dated November 17, 1976, notified the Petitioner that it expected to conclude negotiations for sale of its property leased by Petitioner sign company on November 1976 and therefore would not renew any sign space leases beyond their expiration date of December 31, 1976. The leases were not renewed and the structures stand upon the property without authorization from the present owner of the property, the State of Florida, which has leased it to the National Park Service. By letter dated April 14, 1977, the National Park Service, requested the Respondent DOT which has the responsibility to administer and enforce the outdoor advertising law, Chapter 479, F.S., to remove subject signs. As a reason for the request, it cited: Title 23 CRF - Highways, Part 131(h) states that "All public lands or reservations of the United States which are adjacent to any portion of . . . the primary system shall be controlled in accordance with the provisions of this section and the national standards promulgated by the Secretary," and Part 138 Preservation of parklands states: "It is hereby declared to be the national policy that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands."
Recommendation Remove the Petitioner's signs. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of April, 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 Post Office Box 539 Winter Park, Florida 32790 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether the sign of Petitioner is in violation of the Florida Statutes, Outdoor Advertising Law, Chapter 479 and particularly Chapter 479.07 for having erected this sign in violation of the zoning regulations and without a permit from the Department of Transportation.
Findings Of Fact An alleged violation notice was sent to Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corporation, Petitioner, by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, on July 27, 1977. The notice indicated that the sign owned by Petitioner located 300 feet north of 5-227, U.S. Highway 301 in Bradford County, Florida, with a blank copy was in violation of Ch. 479, Florida Statutes, Rule 14-10-05 (1)(a), Not zone for conforming sign - sign erected in a zoned agricultural area. Ch. 479.07(1) Florida Statutes, Rule 14-10.04 Sign erected without first [sic] obtaining a permit. A violation notice was received by Michael S. Nelson, lease representative for the Respondent, and a letter was sent to the District Administrator for Outdoor Advertising, Florida Department of Transportation, acknowledging receipt of the violation notice and requesting the Department of Transportation to set the cause for hearing. This administrative hearing is the result of such request. The Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corporation made an application for permit for a sign to be located at the location the subject sign now stands. The application for a permit was not approved for the stated reason that the requested location was in a zoned open rural area and outdoor advertising could not be permitted in such a location. Petitioner was so notified. Nevertheless a sign was erected by Petitioner and Respondent's inspectors found said sign at the location with no copy on it at the first inspection. Subsequent to that inspection, the sign was finished by Petitioner to advertise McDonalds, with the large golden "M", further stating: "Campers/ Buses 3 Miles Ahead on the Right, Open at 7:00 for Breakfast." The sign was erected without a permit in a zoned open rural area in Bradford County. The sign is approximately 15 feet off the right of way of Highway 301 in open rural country at least 3 miles from any industrial or commercial areas. Petitioner contends that he applied for a permit to erect the sign at the subject location but that his application was denied. Regardless, he erected the sign and has been endeavoring to have the rural area rezoned. Respondent, Department of Transportation, contends that the erection of the subject sign is in violation of the law inasmuch as it is the duty of the Department of Transportation to grant a permit before a sign is erected. Respondent further contends that the area in which the sign is located is in open rural country and the proposed sign location, even if it were rezoned to allow outdoor advertising, could not be permitted by the Department inasmuch as such rezoning would be "spot zoning" and contrary to the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, Title 1 of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and Title 23, U.S. Code and contrary to the concept of "effective control" by the Florida Department of Transportation which has the duty to control outdoor advertising for the State of Florida. In response to a request to the Bradford County Zoning Commission, the following letter was received: Pursuant to our conversation on November 7, relating to the zoning classification of the C. M. Ritch property located approximately 2 miles South of Starke on Hwy. 301, the property is zoned Open Rural and under Bradford County Zoning Ordinances does allow outdoor advertising signs. The area in which the sign was erected is the area indicated in the letter. The Petitioner intentionally erected its sign in the open rural area of Bradford County and continues to allow it to stand although the Bradford County Zoning Ordinances show that no outdoor advertising is to be allowed.
Recommendation Remove the sign of Respondent for intentionally erecting a sign in an unzoned rural area without a permit from the Department of Transportation. Invoke the penalties provided in Section 479.18, Florida Statutes, for both the Petitioner and for the McDonald Corporation whose goods and services are advertised. Section 479.13, Penalties, provides: 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 Section 775.083: and such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each month during any portion of which any violation off 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 ORDERED this 13th day of March, 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 Rick Hurst, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Michael S. Nelson Lease Representative Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corp. P. O. Box 301 Ocala, Florida 32670 L. M. Gaines, Director Bradford County Zoning Commission P. O. Drawer B Starke, Florida 32091 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN RE: PETERSON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE FOR JUDICIAL Petitioner, REVIEW AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED vs. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Respondent. / CASE NO. 77-1432T
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed optician in the State of Florida, holding license number DO-0001378. The last known address of the Respondent is 20/20 Opticians, Inc., of 6201 S.W. 70th Street, South Miami, Florida. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was president of 20/20 Opticians, Inc. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida, charged with regulating the practice of opticianry, including regulation of practice standards, including standards of advertising. The Petitioner, through Exhibit One and the testimony of Jim Foreman of Southern Bell, established that the Respondent took out the subject ad advertising the "buy one - get one free" arrangement for obtaining glasses from his firm and Petitioner established that the Respondent signed the order or invoice for purchase of the ad. This ad had been taken out previously and then renewed in substantially the same format with merely the picture of the Respondent deleted. The ad, with the subject advertisement, was renewed on December 17, 1979. Maria Osuna, an investigator for the department went to 20/20 Opticians, Inc. in July of 1981. She conferred there with Lewis Ramirez, an employee of the Respondent, regarding the possibility of her obtaining a free pair of eyeglasses after purchasing a pair. That employee said that the ad was not honored any longer. She conferred with the office manager of the Respondent's firm who knew of the ad, but refused to honor it. Allen Daniel Kirtis was hired by the Respondent in March of 1981. The Respondent told him to give customers second pairs of eyeglasses (with their old frames) for $9.95 and not to honor the subject ad, but rather to charge them $9.95 for a second pair or 50 percent of retail price, which ever was higher. He was specifically instructed by the Respondent not to honor the ad during the time when the ad was running in the yellow pages. Mr. Kirtis established that the subject ad was current and ran as a current advertisement in the phone directory at least until November, 1981. In response to the evidence and testimony adduced by Petitioner, the Respondent produced nothing and failed to appear at the hearing.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty as charged and a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner suspending his license for one (1) year. DONE and ENTERED this 30th of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 30th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Carter, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lionel Barnet, Esquire 13842 SW 56th Street Miami, Florida 33183 Fred Varn, Executive Director Board of Opticianry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Petitioner, Republic Media, Inc., seeks an outdoor advertising sign permit for a two-sided sign to be located on Interstate 4 in Orlando, Florida. The permit was denied because the proposed sign would conflict with (violate spacing requirements) a previously permitted sign. The issue for disposition is whether Petitioner’s permit should be granted. More specifically, disposition requires a determination of whether the previously permitted sign is “on” Interstate 4.
Findings Of Fact Republic Media, Inc. (then known as Maxmedia, Inc.) applied for an outdoor advertising permit on April 30, 1996, for a proposed sign site located on Interstate 4 (I-4), 199 feet east of Princeton Street, on the south side of I-4 in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. I-4 is an interstate highway. The proposed sign site is within 660 feet of I-4 and is intended to be visible from I-4. The proposed structure is a rectangular shaped bulletin, 10’6” by 36’, set on a monopole with east and west faces at a V-angle, to facilitate an effective viewing by motorists on I-4. Republic Media has a lease for the proposed site from the landowner, Shell Oil Company. The proposed sign was approved by the City of Orlando and a building permit was issued. POA’s is the nearest DOT-permitted outdoor advertising sign and is located 90 feet east of Princeton Street. The POA sign is on the same side of the interstate and the same side of Princeton Street as Republic Media’s proposed sign, and is less than 1,500 feet from Republie Media’s proposed sign. The POA sign consists of two back-to-back billboards mounted on a monopole facing north and south. The north face, facing I-4 and running parallel to the interstate, bears a Department of Transportation permit tag numbered BG003-35. POA applied for and obtained this permit in 1992. The permitted sign face measures 12’ by 25’ and is located within 660 feet of I-4. The POA sign is visible while traveling in both directions on I-4. It is visible, however, only if the viewer turns his or her head to look down Princeton Street while traveling I-4 on the Princeton Street overpass. Visibility is limited to a few seconds and is impeded by oleander bushes which are maintained and trimmed by the City of Orlando. The POA sign, which advertises Universal Studios, was intended and designed for viewing by traffic on Princeton Street. Republic Media has a sign located within 660 feet of State Road 408 (East-West Expressway) which is positioned similar to the POA sign at issue here. The Republic Media sign also runs parallel to State Road 408 and is actually farther from State Road 408 than the POA sign is from I-4. When State Road 408 became subject to state regulation of outdoor advertising, the Department of Transportation required Republic Media to obtain a permit for the sign face visible from State Road 408. This regulatory action is consistent with the permitting of POA’s Princeton Street/I-4 sign.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Republic Media’s application for sign permit at I-4 and Princeton Street be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April 1997 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 16th day of April 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: David H. Simmons, Esquire Julie Walbroel, Esquire Drage DeBeaubian Knight Simmons Romano & Neal Post Office Box 87 Orlando, Florida 32802-0087 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
