07-000801
Lamar Advertising Of Ft. Walton Beach vs.
Department Of Transportation
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, December 13, 2007.
Recommended Order on Thursday, December 13, 2007.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8LAMAR ADVERTISING OF )
12FT. WALTON BEACH , )
16)
17Petitioner , )
19)
20vs. ) Case No. 07 - 0801
27)
28DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION , )
32)
33Respondent . )
36)
37RECOMMEND ED ORDER
40A formal hearing was conducted in this case on June 6,
512007, in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, before Diane Cleavinger,
60Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative
68Hearings.
69APPEARANCES
70For Petitioner: James E. Moore, Esquire
76Post Office Box 1622
80Crestview, Florida 32536
83For Respondent: David Littlejohn, Esquire
88Department of Transportation
91Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58
97605 Suwannee Street
100Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450
105STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
109The issue in this ca se is whether Petitioner is entitled to
121an outdoor advertising sign permit to be located in an unzoned
132commercial /industrial area and whether the sign site qualified
141as an unzoned commercial/industrial area.
146PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
148On November 13, 2006, Petitioner, Lamar Advertising of Fort
157Walton Beach, filed two applications for outdoor adverti si ng
167sign site per mits wi th Respondent, the Florida Department of
178Transportation (Department). The applications sought permits
184for a one - site location for a two - faced outdoor advertising sign
198located on US - 331, Walton Count y , Florida . By notice dated
211November 29, 2006, th e Department denied the applications.
220On January 30, 2007, Lamar filed an Amended Request for an
231Administrative Hearing contesting the agencys decisions and
238requesting a formal hearing. The matter was referred to the
248Div ision of Administrative Heari ng s .
256At the hearing, Lamar presented the testimony of three
265witnesses : Chad Pickens, Lease Manager, Lamar Advertising of
274Fort Walton Beach ; Billy Wayne Strickland, Florida Department of
283Transportation Outdoor Advertising Senior Agent ; and Larry Wayne
291Adkinson, Vice President of North Florida Development, Inc.
299Petitioner also offered eight exhibits into evidence. The
307Respondent presented the testimony of one witness, Billy Wayne
316Strickland, and offered seven exhibits into evidence.
323After the he aring, Petitioner and Respondent filed Proposed
332Recommended Orders on August 27, 2007. Petitioner also filed a
342Motion to Re - open and Request For Judicial Notice on August 25,
3552007. The Motion to Re - open the record was granted. On
367Octobe r 11 , 2007 , a te lephone hearing was held so that
379Petitioner could submit additional evidence. Official
385recognition was taken of the Departments dismissal of a Notice
395of Violation issued to North Florida Development, Inc. ,
403regarding an unpermitted sign on the property in volved in
413Petitioners applications.
415FINDINGS OF FACT
4181. Lamar is in the business of erecting, operating and
428maint aining outdoor advertising signs in Northwest Florida.
4362. The proposed signs location was in Walton County along
446US Highway 331, .1 mile s outh of Bay Grove Road , a collector
459road . U.S. Highway 331 is a federal aid primary highway and
471therefore , a state permit is required for signs placed along its
482path .
4843. According to a Walton County zoning plan , the proposed
494signs location was in an area zoned Rural Village on both the
506Future Land Use Map and Land Development Regulations. The June
5162006 version of the Walton County Land Development Code
525provides:
526F. Rural Village (RV): This district is a
534mixed use district which permits
539p redominately residential development up to
545a maximum of two units per acre.
552(i) Residential uses shall account for
558approximately 95 percent of the total land
565area within any area designated on the FLUM
573for this District. The remaining area may
580be util ized for related and compatible
587commercial uses.
589(ii) Commercial uses may occupy up to five
597percent of the total land area designated on
605the FLUM for this District.
610(iii) Commercial land uses shall be limited
617to collector and arterial road
622intersec tions, intersections of subdivision
627collectors and arterial or collector road,
633and areas that are specifically designated
639Commercial on the FLUM.
643(iv) Not more than 15 percent of the total
652frontage on both sides of a collector or
660arterial road shall be o ccupied by
667commercial uses with in this district.
673The Walton County Land Development Code also defined general
682commercial activity as including inventory storage.
6884 . The proposed sign s location met the requirements for
699commerci al use under the RV designation. Walton County
708certified to the Department that the designated parcel for the
718proposed outdoor advertising sign was Rural Village and that the
728primary use of the area under the current comprehensive plan was
739agriculture, general agriculture, r esidential, civic use s, and
748residential subdivision. Walton County also confirmed that the
756proposed outdoor advertising sign would be in compliance with
765all duly adopted local ordinances and would be issued the
775necessary County permit for such sign .
7825 . The Walton County Property Appraisers website listed
791the usage of the proposed outdoor advertising sign location as a
802service station. The service station building was still on
811the property, but had not been used as such for a number of
824years.
8256 . Billy Wayne Strickland, the state outdoor advertisin g
835administrator of the Department, process ed the outdoor
843advertising permit ap plications submitted by Lamar.
850Mr. Strickland determined after a review of La mars application s
861that the site, being des ign ated as Rural V illage with mixed uses
875allowed, met the need for evaluation under the use test for
886unzoned commercial or industrial areas contained in Chapter 479,
895Florida Statutes .
8987 . The use test is set f orth in Florida Statute s 479.02.
912Under the test, the Department examines a proposed signs
921location under the applicable current land use designation and
930future land use de signation to determine if the outdoor
940advertising site meets the use criteria set forth in the statute
951for unzoned commerci al and industrial areas . The use criteria
962for such unzoned property require that three commercial or
971industrial activities be located within 1600 feet of each other ,
981with one of those activit ies located on the same side of the
994road and within 800 feet of the proposed sign s location.
1005D istances are measured from building to building. Additionally,
1014the commercial or industrial activity must be visible from the
1024highway.
10258 . Mr. Strickland visited the property in order to
1035determine if the proposed sign location met the requirements of
1045the use test. He observed that the proposed signs site holds
1056an abandoned - looking gas station and a house with a large fenced
1069in area. Leaking fuel tanks made it unlikely the service
1079station would be restored. There wer e several small, boarded - up,
1091fishing style cabins associated with the fenced property. The
1101fenced area had a sign posted for North Florida Development,
1111Inc., a construction company. There was a number for the
1121company listed on the sign. On a tree to t he right of the fence
1136was a sign that read Private Road Keep Out. In general , the
1148area behind the fence appeared to be used for storage of
1159building materials and equipment such as trucks and trailers .
1169Except for the area behind the fence, the North Flo rida
1180Development property was clearly visible from the highway.
11889. Mr. Strickland called the phone number on the sign and
1199was informed that North Flori da Development, Inc. , that he was
1210calling , was in Miramar Beach, Florida , and that North Florida
1220Development was storing equipment and trucks at the U.S. Highway
1230331 location for a job they were doing in Destin.
124010. There was no one present at the house or the adjacent
1252buildings. The North Florida Development buildings and fenced
1260area were with in 800 feet of the proposed sign s location and
1274were on the same side of the road as the proposed signs
1286location. Because of the lack of activity, Mr. Strickland
1295concluded that the North Florida Development property was not a
1305commercial activity which wa s visible from the highway. On the
1316opposite side of the Highway, Mr. Strickland observe d two
1326businesses within a 1600 - foo t zone that met the criteria of the
1340use test.
134211 . Additio n a lly, while at the site, Mr. Strickland issued
1355a Notice of Violation f or the on - premises sign of North Florida
1369Development. The Notice required the sign to be removed.
1378Later, after the hearing in this matter, this action was
1388dismissed by the Department.
13921 2 . On November 29, 2006, the Department issued a written
1404deni al of the outdoor advertising sign site permit applications
1414for the following reasons: (1) the sign site was not permitted
1425under the local land use designation of site per Section
1435479.111(2), Florida Statutes, and (2) the sign site did not
1445qualify as an u nzoned commercial/industrial are a per Section
1455479.01(23) , Florida Statutes.
14581 3 . On the morning of April 5, 2007, Mr. Strickland, a gain
1472visited the proposed signs site. He observed ess entially the
1482same things he observed during his first visit to th e location,
1494except the large North Florida Development sign that had been on
1505the entrance to the fenced area had been removed.
15141 4 . Andrew White , a regional inspe ctor with the
1525Department, inspected the North Florida Development site on
1533May 17, 2007, and photographed the area. The sign for North
1544Florida Development had been removed, but the keep - out signs
1555were still in place. Photographs taken from the street revealed
1565a partial view of a storage trailer through the open fence.
157615 . On the mornin g of June 6, 2007, just prior to the
1590hearing, Mr. Strickland again visited the proposed sign s
1600location and observed no activity at the location. He could
1610only see a trailer partially visible beyond the privacy fence.
162016 . Larry Wayne Adkinson, vice president of North Florida
1630Development and a general contractor licensed in Mississippi,
1638lives and works on the property of the proposed signs location.
1649Mr. Adkinson testified that the property total ed five and a - half
1662or six acres and consist ed of his hom e , his office , the service
1676station and five fishing cabins. He and his business have been
1687at t his location for at least 12 years. Work has been delayed
1700on repairing the service station based, in part, upon the fact
1711that the state was seeking to condemn a portion of the property
1723where the service station was located for the expansion of U.S.
1734H ighway 331.
173717 . Mr. Adkinson uses the property as an inventory site,
1748storing construction materials, heavy equipment, landscaping
1754materials, and other bulk ma terial related to his business. The
1765site contained three semi - tractor trailers that were utilized to
1776store construction materials , including doors, windows, and
1783heavy equipment and equipment and materials for a landscape
1792business owned by Mr. Adkinson. T he landscape business stored
1802tractor - trailers, small - equipment trailers, plants , brick
1811pavers, scaffolding and rock molds. The sites storage of
1820inventory and business activity was very visible to people who
1830lived in the neighborhood around the North Flori da Development
1840property. The visibility was such that , in 2006 , the neighbors
1850complained about the view to the County. The C ounty, in turn,
1862asked Mr. Adkinson to place a fence around the area to block the
1875view of people passing through the area. Mr. Adk inson complied
1886with the Countys request and built the priva cy fence that
1897Mr. Strickland observed. Mr. Adkinson also placed the companys
1906business sign on the fence to identify the property as North
1917Florida Developments business property.
192118 . Mo st of the loading and unloading of material and
1933equipment occurs in the early morning and evening hours. At
1943those times, there is considerable activity at the site with
1953trucks and equipment entering and leaving the property.
1961Mr. Adkinsons testimony was confirmed by the testimony of Chad
1971Pickens, who routinely drives by the site during those hours.
1981Mr. Strickland never visited the property during those busy
1990hours, and therefore , did not observe the business activity
1999associated with the site.
20031 9 . Mr. Adkinson uses two of the fishing cabins as machine
2016shops for his companys equipment and tools . The shops contain
2027drill presses, welding and repair equipment. Entry is gain ed
2037through the rear doors of the cabins . He left the front of the
2051cabins boar ded up to prevent theft and storm damage.
206120 . Mr. Adkinson also receives business mail at the U.S.
2072Highway 331 location and has employees and jo b applicants report
2083to that location . Clearly, the North Florida Development
2092property is a viable and on - going business that conducts one of
2105its business activities on the property on which the proposed
2115sign is to be located. The activity is visible from the
2126highway, although such activity ebbs and flows through the day.
2136The property , therefore , meets the l and use t est requirements of
2148Florida S tatutes , and the Petitioners applications should be
2157granted.
2158CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
216121 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has
2169jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this
2180proceeding . §§ 12 0.569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat.
218922 . The Department of Transportation has the authority to
2199regulate outdoor advertising and issue permits for signs located
2208along interstate and federal aid primary highways pursuant to
2217Chapter 479, Florida Statutes , and F lorida Administrative Code
2226Rule 14 - 10.
223023 . Lamars outdoor advertising sign permit applications
2238are governed by the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes ,
2248and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14 - 10.
225624 . Chapter 479.01(23), Florida Statute s , provides:
2264Unzoned commercial or industrial area
2269means a parcel of land design at ed by the
2279future land use map of the comprehensive
2286plan for multiple uses that include
2292commercial or industrial uses but are not
2299specifically designated for commercial or
2304i ndustrial uses under the land development
2311regulations, in which three or more separate
2318and distinct conforming industrial or
2323commercial uses are located.
2327(a) These activities must satisfy the
2333following criteria:
23351. At least one of the commercial or
2343industrial activities must be located on the
2350same side of the highway and within 800 feet
2359of the sign locations;
23632. The commercial or industrial activities
2369must be within 660 feet from the nearest
2377edge of the right - of - way; and
23863. The commercial indus trial activities
2392must be within 1,600 feet of each other.
2401Distances specified in this paragraph must be measure d from the
2412nearest outer edge of the primary building complex when the
2422individual units of the complex are connected by covered
2431walkways.
2432(b) C ertain activities, including, but not
2439limited to, the following, may not be so
2447recognized as commercial or industrial
2452activities:
24531. Signs.
24552. Agricultural, forestry, ranching,
2459grazing, farming, and related acti vities,
2465including, but not limited to, wayside fresh
2472produce stands.
2474ansient or temporary activities.
24784. Activities not visible from the main -
2486traveled way.
24885. Activities conducted more than 660 feet
2495from the nearest edge of the right - of - way.
25066. Activities conducted in a building
2512principally used as a residence.
25177. Railroad tracks and minor sidings.
25238. Communication towers.
252625 . Section 479.111 , Florida Statutes, entitled Specified
2534signs allowed within controlled portions of the interstate and
2543federal - aid primary highw ay system provides:
2551Only the following signs shall be allowed
2558within controlled portions of the interstate
2564highway system and the federal - aid primary
2572highway system as set fort h in s. 479.11 (1)
2582and (2):
2584(1) Directional or other official signs and
2591noti ces which conform to 23 C.F.R. ss.
2599750.151 - 750.155.
2602(2) Signs in commercial - zoned and
2609industrial - zoned areas or commercial - unzoned
2617and industrial - unzoned areas and within 660
2625feet of the nearest edge of the right - of -
2636way, subject to the requirements set in the
2644agreement between the state and the United
2651States Department of Transportation.
265526 . In short, i f a proposed outdoor advertising sign
2666location is not situated in an area specifically zoned
2675commercial or industrial, Section 479.01(3), Florida Statutes,
2682provides a two - pronged analysis to evaluate the proposed outdoor
2693advertising sign s location. First, the area must be designated
2703for multiple uses on the future land use map of the
2714comprehensive plan , and ( 2) the land development regulations
2723mu st not clearly designate the parcel for a specific use. If
2735the property meets these criteria, the area will be considered
2745an unzoned commercial or industrial are a which must meet the
2757criteria of Section 479.01(23), Florida Statutes.
276327 . As the par ty seeking a S tate sign permit, Lamar bears
2777the burden of proving entitlement to a permit by a preponderance
2788of the evidence. Fla. Dept. of Transportation v. J.W. C. Co.,
2799Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
280928 . The Department stipulated th at the proposed site for
2820Lamars outdoor advertisin g sign is located in a multiple - use
2832area for zoning and future land use. Further, pursuant to the
2843future land use map of the Walton County Land Development Code,
2854the permitted uses include commercial uses . The parcel was not
2865specifically designated for a specific use under the current
2874land development regulations. Walton Countys zoning
2880classification of Rural Village authori zed five percent
2888commercial use. Such classification was not a commercial zon ing
2898designation. The land development regulations allowed the
2905parcel to be developed for either residential or commercial use.
2915The Department, therefore, properly considered the Rural Village
2923designation as mixed use and examined it under Section
2932479.01( 23), Florida Statute s , to determine if the area could be
2944considered an unzoned commercial or unzoned industrial area
2952under the use test.
295629 . In this case, Lamars s ite met the two - prong test for
2971S ubsections 479.01 (3) and (23), Florida Statutes. The evidence
2981demonstrated that three businesses were within the proper
2989proximity to the proposed site to meet the spa cing configuration
3000required in S ubsection 479.01( 23)(a), Florida Statutes. At
3009least one of those businesses, North Florida Development, is
3018wit hin 800 feet and on the same side of the highway as the
3032proposed location of the sign.
303730 . It was an error for the Department to determine that
3049inventory storage by North Florida Development was not a
3058commercial activity. The Departments position w as based on the
3068fact that the property was neither open to the public, nor
3079providing a service to the public. Howe ver, this definition of
3090commercial or industrial activity is not supported by the
3099statute. Indeed , the statute does not mention that a busin ess
3110must be open to the public or providing a service to the public
3123to qualify under this statute. If that were the case, large
3134company distribution centers, such as those Wal - mart maintains,
3144would not qualify as industrial or commercial activities.
3152Clea rly such distribution centers constitute commercial or
3160industrial activities.
316231 . In Clear Channel Outdoor - Atlantic Coast Division v.
3173Department of Transportation , DOAH Case No. 06 - 2233,
3182RO: January 3, 2007 , the administrative law judge address ed t he
3194issue of interpretation of com mercial or industrial activity :
3204According to Garner, Respondent interprets
3209the term commercial or industrial use
3215found in Subsection 479.01(3), Florida
3220Statutes, as those words are commonly
3226understood, rather than as ap plied in land
3235development regulations. Garner uses the
3240laymans everyday interpretation of the term
3246industrial when applying the term.
3251Respondent has a uniform interpretation of
3257Subsection 479.01(3), Florida Statutes,
3261under which it utilizes an everyda y lay
3269definition of commercial or industrial zone,
3275rather than a technical planning and zoning
3282approach. Garners opinion that the sign
3288sites were not designated as industrial uses
3295was based on this uniform interpretation.
3301That interpretation is not refl ected in
3308Florida Administrative Code Rule 14 - 10.
3315In this case, t he definition of general commercial activity
3325includes inventory storage in the Walton County Land Developm ent
3335Code. The activity was visible enough that neighbors complained
3344and a fence wa s erected. Additionally, a business sign was
3355placed on the property to identify the property as business
3365property. Commercial activity that supports the companys
3372business takes place on the property and , therefore , qualifies
3381as a commercial or industria l activity under the statute .
339232 . In FoodN Fun, Inc. v. Department of Transportation ,
3402493 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) , the court addressed the issue
3415of visibility from the highway , thus :
3422FoodN Fun applied for the permits involved
3429in Case No. BK - 1 35 in 1979, relying for the
3441required commercial activity on a welding
3447business, which was carried on in a tin shed
3456which it was undisputed could be seen from
3464the right - of - way, Interstate 10 in Jackson
3474County. The permits in BK - 136 were applied
3483for in 1980 , in reliance on a dairy supply
3492business, located in a building which could
3499also be seen from the highway. Finally, the
3507permits in BK - 137 were applied for in 1978,
3517relying on a sausage - making business,
3524conducted in a block building which could be
3532seen fro m the highway.
3537In all of these cases, the inspector field
3545approved the permits following on - site
3552inspections. They were then approved by the
3559District Administrator and forwarded to
3564Tallahassee for issuance. FoodN Fun
3569thereafter was permitted to renew all of
3576these permits annually until October, 1984,
3582at which time it received notices of
3589violation stating that the signs were not
3596in a commercial or industrial area.
3602The allegation was expanded upon at hearing
3609on the notices requested by FoodN Fun . DOT
3618stated as to all of these permits that the
3627crux of the alleged violations was that,
3634even though the buildings wherein the
3640various activities were being conducted
3645could be seen from the highway, there was no
3654indication to highway traffic that any
3660com mercial activity was in progress, such as
3668a business sign, employees at work, cars in
3676a parking lot, etc . With regard to the
3685welding and dairy supply business, there was
3692also evidence that those businesses were no
3699longer in operation at the time of the
3707he aring.
3709Pursuant to Section 479.08(1), Florida
3714Statutes, the department may . . . revoke
3722any permit issued by it . . . in any case
3733where it shall appear to the department that
3741the application for the permit contains
3747knowingly false or misleading informa tion or
3754that the permit has violated any of the
3762provisions of this chapter. . . . Testimony
3770by DOT representatives at the violation
3776hearings indicates that the agency was
3782relying on the emphasized ground to revoke
3789FoodN Funs permits, claiming that based on
3796the invisibility from the highway of
3802commercial activity in progress, the
3807permittee had violated the chapter,
3813specifically Section 479.01(10) (activity
3817not visible from the main - traveled way), in
3826the placement of its signs.
3831The hearing officer issu ed his recommended
3838order finding that, regardless of the
3844initial approval of the applications, the
3850statutory prerequisites for the erection of
3856lawful sign were not present when the
3863applications were submitted in that the
3869activities relied on were not visi ble from
3877the main - traveled way, i.e. there was
3886nothing to indicate to I - 10 traffic that a
3896. . . business was up there. He rejected
3905the applicants argument that DOT was
3911stopped by its approval from revoking the
3918permits because no factual representation s
3924had been made that were contrary to a later
3933asserted position. He recommended that the
3939permits be revoked and the signs removed.
3946The recommended order was adopted by the
3953agency as its final order revoking the
3960permits.
3961An administrative agency, empow ered to
3967revoke a permit for reasons specified in a
3975statute, may not revoke such permit for any
3983cause not clearly within the ambit of its
3991statutory authority, as statutes authorizing
3996revocation must be strictly construed. Rush
4002v. Department of Professional Regulation ,
4007448 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In this
4017case, DOT relies on that portion of Section
4025479.08 which authorizes revocation based on
4031violation of Chapter 479 by the permittee,
4038in this case by placing sign in what DOT
4047later determined to be a no n - commercial
4056zone.
4057The requirement of the privacy fence and the erection of the
4068business sign are sufficient indicia of visible commercial
4076activity in and of themselves to establish a prima facie case of
4088visibility. Additionally, there is considerable co mmercial or
4096industrial activity in the morning and evening hours at the
4106property. The buildings are visible from the highway. Clearly,
4115Lamars proposed outdoor advertising sign is located in an
4124unzoned commercial area and meets the use test of the statut e .
4137The proposed applications should , therefore , be granted .
4145RECOMMENDATION
4146Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
4156Law, i t is
4160RECOMMENDED:
4161That the Florida Department of Transportation enter a Final
4170Order granting the ap plications for outdoor advertising sign
4179permits filed by Lamar Advertising of Fort Walton Beach.
4188DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December , 2007 , in
4198Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
4202S
4203DIANE CLEAVINGER
4205Administrative L aw Judge
4209Division of Administrative Hearings
4213The DeSoto Building
42161230 Apalachee Parkway
4219Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
4224(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675
4232Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847
4238www.doah.state.fl.us
4239Filed with the Clerk of the
4245Division of Administrative Hearings
4249this 13th day of December , 2007 .
4256COMPLETE COPIES FURNISHED :
4260Susan Schwartz, Esquire
4263Department of Transportation
4266Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58
4272605 Suwannee Street
4275Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450
4280James E. Moore, Esquire
4284Post Office B ox 1622
4289Crestview, Florida 32536
4292David M. Littlejohn, Esquire
4296Department of Transportation
4299Haydon Burns Building , Mail Station 58
4305605 Suwannee Street
4308Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0458
4313James C. Meyer s
4317Clerk of Agency Proceedings
4321Department of Transportati on
4325Haydon Burns Building , Mail Station 58
4331605 Suwannee Street
4334Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450
4339Stephanie Kopelousos, Secretary
4342Department of Transportation
4345Haydon Burns Building , Mail Station 57
4351605 Suwannee Street
4354Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450
4359Alexi s M. Yarbrough, General Counsel
4365Haydon Burns Building , Mail Station 58
4371605 Suwannee Street
4374Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450
4379NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
4385All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
439515 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions
4406to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that
4417will issue the Final Order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 12/13/2007
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- Date: 10/11/2007
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/27/2007
- Proceedings: Lamar Advertising of Ft. Walton Beach`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/27/2007
- Proceedings: Notice of Filing Lamar Advertising of Ft. Walton Beach`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/27/2007
- Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order of Respondent, Department of Transportation filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/25/2007
- Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time (proposed recommended orders to be filed by August 27, 2007).
- Date: 07/16/2007
- Proceedings: Transcript filed.
- Date: 06/06/2007
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/30/2007
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for June 6, 2007; 10:00 a.m., Central Time; Fort Walton Beach, FL).
Case Information
- Judge:
- DIANE CLEAVINGER
- Date Filed:
- 02/15/2007
- Date Assignment:
- 02/15/2007
- Last Docket Entry:
- 02/12/2008
- Location:
- Fort Walton Beach, Florida
- District:
- Northern
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN TOTO
Counsels
-
David M Littlejohn, Esquire
Address of Record -
James E Moore, Esquire
Address of Record -
Susan Schwartz, Esquire
Address of Record