07-000801 Lamar Advertising Of Ft. Walton Beach vs. Department Of Transportation
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, December 13, 2007.


View Dockets  
Summary: The evidence showed that proposed site was an unzoned commercial or industrial site since construction company actively used site for storage of materials and machine repairs.

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 agency’s 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 Department’s dismissal of a Notice

395of Violation issued to North Florida Development, Inc. ,

403regarding an unpermitted sign on the property in volved in

413Petitioner’s 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 sign’s 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

494sign’s 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 Appraiser’s website listed

791the usage of the proposed outdoor advertising sign location as a

802“service 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 mar’s 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 sign’s

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 sign’s 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,

1091“fishing 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 sign’s

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 sign’s 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 sign’s 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 site’s 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 County’s request and built the priva cy fence that

1897Mr. Strickland observed. Mr. Adkinson also placed the company’s

1906business sign on the fence to identify the property as North

1917Florida Development’s 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. Adkinson’s 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 company’s 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 Petitioner’s 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 . Lamar’s 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:

2264“Unzoned 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

2820Lamar’s 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

2865“specifically designated” for a specific use under the current

2874land development regulations. Walton County’s 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, Lamar’s 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 Department’s 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

3240layman’s everyday interpretation of the term

3246“industrial” 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. Garner’s 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 company’s

3372business takes place on the property and , therefore , qualifies

3381as a commercial or industria l activity under the statute .

339232 . In Food’N 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 :

3422Food’N 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. Food’N 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 Food’N 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

3789Food’N Fun’s 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

3886“nothing to indicate to I - 10 traffic that a

3896. . . business was up there.” He rejected

3905the applicant’s 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,

4115Lamar’s 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.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2008
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/11/2008
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 12/13/2007
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 12/13/2007
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held June 6, 2007). CASE CLOSED.
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: 10/04/2007
Proceedings: Order Re-opening Record.
PDF:
Date: 09/25/2007
Proceedings: Amended Motion to Reopen and Request for Judicial Notice filed.
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).
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2007
Proceedings: Joint Post-hearing Stipulation filed.
Date: 07/16/2007
Proceedings: Transcript filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/13/2007
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
Date: 06/06/2007
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 05/30/2007
Proceedings: Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by D. Littlejohn).
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).
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2007
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/27/2007
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 03/27/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for May 7, 2007; 10:00 a.m., Central Time; Fort Walton Beach, FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2007
Proceedings: Respondent`s Notice of Unavailability filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/26/2007
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/15/2007
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 02/15/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Denied Application filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/15/2007
Proceedings: Amended Request for Formal Hearing on Outdoor Sign filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/15/2007
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

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

Related Florida Statute(s) (6):