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).
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.
The Issue Whether Respondent has violated Section 479.07(1)(4)(6) and 479.11(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent is a corporation and did not have counsel present at the hearing. In the light of Rule 14-6.03, Florida Administrative Code, which provides that all entities created by law shall be represented by counsels Mr. Miller was not permitted to represent the corporation at this hearings however, he was advised that if he so desired he could testify as a witness. He elected to do so during the proceedings. At the hearing Petitioner's representative moved to withdraw the allegation of a violation with regard to Respondent's sign on Interstate Highway I-10 located 1.8 miles east of State Road 81 on the north side. The amendment of the petition was granted.
Findings Of Fact The sign in question is on Interstate Highway I-10, .9 miles east of State Road 81 on the north side, and 18 feet from the I-10 right-of-way fence which in turn is located within 6 inches of the right-of-way. The text of the sign provides directions to a Fina gasoline station. The outdoor advertising inspector of District III has observed Mr. Miller at this station in the past. The inspector established the precise location of the sign and took a photograph thereof on December 10, 1975. The sign is not in a zoned or unzoned commercial or industrial area as evidenced by observation of the inspector and a sketch of the area prepared by him together with a general highway map of the Florida State Road Department establishes that the sign is not located within the city limits of Ponce de Leon, Florida, or any other incorporated city or town. No state permit tag issued by the Department of Transportation was affixed to the sign at the time of its inspection on December 10, 1975. Although Respondent has previously submitted an application for a permit it was not issued because the sign was in violation of existing law and regulations as determined by the Department (Testimony of Williams, Jordan; Exhibits 1, 2 & 3) Respondent's service station is south of Interstate Highway I-10 and at the time it was leased the land owner informed the Respondent's representative that its location was within the city limits of Ponce de Leon. In like manner, Respondent learned by hearsay that the area that he leased for his sign was also in the city limits. Respondent was under the impression that the problem was that his sign was located in an unzoned area. Mr. Miller testified that Exhibit 1 accurately depicted his sign and that Exhibit 2, its location and conceded that he had applied for a permit which was denied and that he presently did not have a permit for the sign which was built in the spring of 1975 (Testimony of Mr. Miller).
Findings Of Fact On August 24, 1981, Famous Brands Television and Appliances, Inc., entered into a Consent Order with the State Attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, whereby Famous Brands, together with its principals and officers and agents, agreed to cease and desist from utilizing "bait and switch" practices or be held in contempt of court. At all times material to that litigation, Respondent Bill Lacek was the president of Famous Brands Television and Appliances, Inc. Famous Brands became bankrupt. Lacek knew that his credibility had been affected by his management of Famous Brands. Therefore, when he opened V.T.S. Video, Inc., a similar business, he placed the corporation in the name of his sister Rose Richard. Although ostensibly the president and sole director of V.T.S. Video, Rose Richard's duties were limited to those of a bookkeeper/office manager, the same duties which she had when she worked for her brother at Famous Brands. V.T.S. Video was in the business of advertising and offering for sale video, television and stereo products to the general public. The business was located at 25 North Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent Bill Lacek formulated, controlled, and directed the acts and practices at V.T.S. Video. He was personally responsible for the purchasing, advertising, marketing, and promoting of the products sold by V.T.S. Video. He personally wrote the advertising, established the sales commission structure for the employees of V.T.S. Video, and attended sales meetings. Lacek solicited customers through newspaper advertising, including advertisements in The Palm Beach Post. Lacek's advertisements included ads for Sony and Hitachi televisions and video cameras. Respondent Lacek's advertisements were not bona fide offers to sell the advertised products. When customers appeared at V.T.S. Video to purchase the advertised Sony or Hitachi products, they were told by V.T.S. Video employees that the Sony or Hitachi products were not available or that the only product available was a "floor model," i.e., a model which has been used at the business for demonstration purposes and which frequently has been damaged and is, therefore, an unattractive product for purchase. Additionally, Lacek and the employees of V.T.S. Video would disparage the advertised products and "switch" the shopper to a different brand, the item which Lacek intended to sell instead of the advertised product. To assure that his salesmen would follow his established "switch and bait" techniques, Lacek set the sales commission structure so that no commission was paid to a salesman who sold the advertised product (if one were available) rather than the product to which the customer was to be switched. Further, the advertisements written by Lacek did not disclose the fact that the advertised item was a floor model. Hopper Electronics in Miami purchases from the factory rebuilt or refurbished products which it then sells to wholesalers. A rebuilt or refurbished product is a product which has been returned to the factory as defective by a customer or a distributor. The factory repairs the item and then re-boxes it for sale. In other words, a rebuilt or refurbished ("RB") product is a used product. Lacek purchased from Hopper on behalf of V.T.S. Video between 3,000 and 5,000 Emerson "RB" products between approximately late 1986 and late 1987. All of the Emerson RB units purchased from Hopper Electronics carried a label saying "RB" on the back of the unit itself and a label saying "RB" on the box containing the unit. Lacek paid Hopper Electronics a total of $780,000 for Emerson RB units during that time period. Although Lacek knew that the RB units were used and not new products, his newspaper ads for those units did not disclose that the products were used or that they were RB products. The Emerson televisions and VCRs purchased from Hopper were sold to the public as new products. Lacek instructed his employees not to disclose that the Emersons were not new products. If a customer questioned the "RB" label appearing on the back of the unit or on the box, the customer was told that the product had been re-boxed or that the product was from Riviera Beach. Respondent Bill Lacek knew that his sales practices were deceptive and that they constituted unfair trade practices, even prior to the institution of this proceeding, since they were the same practices that he was enjoined from utilizing when he signed the Consent Order on behalf of Famous Brands Television and Appliances, Inc., in 1981. Respondent Lacek's practices in the operation of V.T.S. Video have injured the public. Two Assistant Attorneys General represented Petitioner at the final hearing in this cause. Attached to Petitioner's proposed recommended order are affidavits from those attorneys stating that they have spent 220 hours combined in the "investigation and resolution" of this matter. Petitioner has failed to submit a cost affidavit and has therefore waived its statutory right to recover reasonable costs in this action. The Agreed Final Order to Cease and Desist entered into by Petitioner and Respondents V.T.S Video, Inc., and Rose Richard the day before the final hearing in this cause provides that Respondent V.T.S. Video, Inc., will pay to Petitioner the sum of $10,000 in civil penalties plus the sum of $15,000 for attorney's fees in this action.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Finding Respondent Bill Lacek guilty of the allegations in the Complaint filed against him; Ordering Respondent Bill Lacek to cease and desist from all violations of Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes, and of Chapter 2-9, Florida Administrative Code; Assessing against Respondent Bill Lacek a civil penalty in the amount of $1,500,000; and Denying Petitioner's claim for reimbursement of its attorney's fees and costs against Respondent Bill Lacek. DONE and ENTERED this ,7th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 88-0505 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5, 7-15, and 17 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 16 has been rejected as not being supported by the record in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Rhonda G. Lapin, Esquire Andy Itzkovits, Esquire Assistant Attorneys General Suite N921 401 N.W. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 32128 James S. Telepman, Esquire 340 Royal Palm Way Post Office Box 2525 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (Last known address for Respondent Bill Lacek) Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation properly denied Petitioner’s permit application for a proposed outdoor advertising sign to be erected adjacent to US 98, 0.817 miles west of State Road 87, in Santa Rosa County, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 3, 1998, Lamar submitted an application for new sign permits for a proposed outdoor advertising sign along US Highway 98, 0.817 miles west of State Road 87 in Navarre, Santa Rosa County, Florida (new permits) to DOT. The new permits were to be located within 2000 feet of existing permitted signs for which Lamar already possessed permits (the existing permits). The existing permit numbers were AE682-6 and BL256-35. Santa Rosa County’s Land Development Code Section 8.07.00 provides that no off-premise advertising sign, such as involved here, can be located within 2000 feet of any other off-premise sign on the same side of the street right-of- way. Since Lamar's existing permitted sign and the proposed location of the new permitted sign was within 2000 feet of each other, Lamar wished to cancel the existing permits conditioned upon the approval of the new permits. The practice is known as conditional cancellation. Prior to and during 1998, DOT had an established non- rule policy of conditional cancellation for existing sign permits. Conditional cancellation could occur when applying for new permits that would potentially conflict with existing permits. An applicant could simultaneously submit a cancellation certification for the existing permits together with the application for new permits. The old permits would not be canceled until new permits were issued. The exact process for requesting a conditional cancellation was not shown to be uniform throughout the state. However, the policy of allowing conditional cancellations to be made by permittees was accepted statewide. The policy and process for conditional cancellation are now codified in Rule 14-10.004, Florida Administrative Code, after the application in this case had been processed. In this case and in conjunction with the submission of Lamar's new permit application, Lamar submitted a copy of the cancellation certification for its existing permitted signs to the regional District Three DOT office in Chipley, together with its application for the new permits. Simultaneously, on April 3, 1998, Lamar submitted the original cancellation certification to the central office of DOT. The instructions on the certification of cancellation require the cancellation form to be submitted to the Tallahassee office of DOT. Neither the cancellation form nor letter from Lamar indicated that the cancellation was conditional. There was no place on the form to make such an indication. Lamar had been following the above-filing practice when requesting conditional cancellation since 1995. Because of its practice Lamar believed that it had properly notified DOT that cancellation of its existing permits was conditioned upon approval of its application for new permits. Lamar never considered that one office of DOT might not know what occurred at another office of DOT or that one office of DOT might not communicate with another office of DOT. On the other hand, the regional office of DOT in Chipley only recognized that an applicant had requested a conditional cancellation of existing permits when the original and not a copy of the cancellation form was submitted with the application for new permits. Lamar was unaware of the distinction between the filing of an original cancellation form with its application and the filing of a copy of the cancellation form with its application. More importantly, this distinction was not a rule and does not appear to have been communicated to anyone save the officials at the Chipley office of DOT. Consequently, Lamar relied on its established practice when seeking a conditional cancellation. A practice that DOT had recognized on earlier conditional cancellations by Lamar. Lamar reasonably believed, based on its previous experience with the policy of conditional cancellation, that existing permits would not be cancelled until the new permits were granted. Shortly after the filing of Lamar’s application, District Three returned Lamar's permit application without action because it was incomplete. The application was not considered filed by DOT because it was incomplete and the entire application package, including the copy of the cancellation form was returned to Lamar. The application was not logged into the Department’s computer. The Chipley office, even though it knew the old permits were to be cancelled, did not notify the Tallahassee office of the return of Lamar’s application or the lack of approval of that application. On April 7, 1998, the Tallahassee office of DOT processed the cancellation form it had received from Lamar on the existing permits. The existing permits were cancelled and the cancellation was logged into the Department’s computer. Because the Department did not follow its policy of conditional cancellation on which Lamar had relied for a number of years and the Department had knowledge of Lamar’s application for new permits which clearly conflicted with the cancelled permits, the existing permits should not have been cancelled and should have remained in effect since the application had not been approved by DOT. The fact that the knowledge resided in different offices of DOT is irrelevant. On April 10, 1998, Bill Salter Advertising (Salter) submitted an application for sign permits. The proposed sign would be located 0.36 miles west of State Road 87 on the same side of US 98 as the existing permit location for Lamar. The Salter permits would be within 2000 feet of Lamar’s existing permits and not be approved by DOT if the existing Lamar permits were still in effect. On May 6, 1998, Lamar resubmitted its complete application for the new permits. Upon inspection of the site for Lamar’s new permits, it was discovered that a spacing conflict existed with the Bill Salter application site. On May 10, 1998, DOT tentatively denied Salter’s application for incorrect information on the sketch of the site it had submitted with its application. On May 28, 1998, Salter amended its application with a corrected site sketch. By letter dated June 5, 1998 the Department advised Lamar that its application would be held pending resolution of the prior application filed by Salter. On June 26, 1998, DOT granted Salter’s application. On July 6, 1998, permits BU595-55 and BU596-55 were issued to Salter. On August 26, 1998, DOT denied Lamar’s applications. The denial was based on Section 479.15, Florida Statutes, which prohibits DOT from granting a permit which would conflict with a county ordinance such as the Santa Rosa County Land Development Code sign spacing requirements. No other basis for denial of the subject permits exists.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation reinstate the Lamar Advertising Company’s existing permits AE682-6 and BL256-35. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 7th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: G. R. Mead, II, Esquire Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry Bond, Stackhouse & Stone 125 West Romana Street, Suite 800 Pensacola, Florida 32591-3010 Sheauching Yu, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
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
Findings Of Fact State outdoor advertising permits numbered 108 60-10 and 10861-10 were issued in February of 1979, and are now held by Headrick Outdoor Advertising, Inc. These permits authorize a sign on the south side of U.S. 90A, approximately 300 feet west of SR 95A, in Escambia County, Florida. In July of 1985, Lamar Advertising Company applied for state outdoor advertising permits to erect a sign facing east and west on the south side of U.S. 90A, approximately 400 feet east of U.S. 29, in Escambia County, Florida. The location proposed by Lamar in its application is in conflict with the location where Headrick holds permits, in that the two sites are less than 1,000 feet apart. The land where the Headrick signs had been located, and the site where the Headrick permits authorize a sign, has been graded and paved, and is being used as a shopping center. In the course of the construction of this shopping center, the Headrick signs were removed, and Headrick no longer has a lease for its permitted site or permission of the property owner to locate a sign there. Lamar has a lease to the site where it applied for permits. This lease is from the owner of the land, and it grants Lamar permission to locate a sign at the location sought to be permitted, through February, 1992.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the state sign permits numbered 10860-10 and 10861-10 held by Headrick Outdoor Advertising, Inc., authorizing a sign on the south side of U.S. 90A, approximately 300 feet west of SR 95A, in Escambia County, Florida be revoked. And it is further RECOMMENDED that the application of Lamar Advertising Company for permits to erect a sign facing east and west on the south side of U.S. 90A, approximately 400 feet east of U.S. 29, in Escambia County, Florida, be granted. THIS Recommended Order entered on this 15th day of January, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert P. Gaines, Esquire P. O. Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. Jim Baughman Vice President Headrick Outdoor Advertising, Inc. 404 Jenks Avenue, Suite "B" Panama City, Florida 32401 Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 A. J. Spalla General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
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
