BILL SALTER OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising obtained permits for an outdoor advertising sign based on permit applications describing the location as an unzoned commercial or industrial area within 800 feet of a business. The Department of Transportation later revoked the permits after determining through reinspection that the applications contained false or misleading information about the sign's actual location. The court affirmed the revocation.
The Department of Transportation properly revoked the permits pursuant to section 479.08, Florida Statutes, which authorizes permit revocation when the permit application contains knowingly false or misleading information. The court rejected appellant's arguments regarding equitable estoppel and compensation for a nonconforming sign, finding appellant had not established equities warranting estoppel and the sign did not qualify as a nonconforming sign under statute.
[1] A permit for an outdoor advertising sign may be revoked when the application for the permit contains knowingly false or misleading information.
[2] An agency may correct an erroneous factual determination, predicated upon an applicant's misrepresentation, in accordance with continuing consistent statutory constructio…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 479.08, Florida Statutes, authorizes DOT to revoke a permit when "the application for the permit contains knowingly false or misleading information...."”
Establishes the statutory basis for DOT's authority to revoke the permits in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1982, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising submitted applications for outdoor advertising sign permits, describing the desired location as "commercial o…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Order Review cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an administrative order by which the Department of Transportation (DOT) revoked permits for an outdoor advertising sign. We affirm the order appealed.
Appellant was issued outdoor advertising sign permits upon applications submitted in 1982, which described the desired location as “commercial or industrial un-zoned within 800 feet of a business.” Outdoor advertising signs are allowed in such a location pursuant to section 479.111(2), Florida Statutes, and DOT approved appellant’s applications and granted the requested permits. However, in 1984 DOT issued a notice of violation for appellant’s sign, alleging “not zoned or unzoned commercial or industrial area.” The notice indicated DOT’s intent to revoke the sign permits, and an administrative hearing was held. At the hearing it was established that appellant’s sign permits were issued after initial inspections by DOT personnel, but that DOT has now determined that the permits were improperly issued. This testimony indicated that appellant’s applications contained false or misleading statements, and that there was no bona fide commercial activity in the area at the time of application.
Section 479.08, Florida Statutes, authorizes DOT to revoke a permit when “the application for the permit contains knowingly false or misleading information....” DOT’S reinspection and investigation revealed that appellant’s sign was not located within 800 feet of a business in an unzoned commercial or industrial area as delineated by section 479.01, Florida Statutes, contrary to the representations made in appellant’s permit applications. Unlike Walker v. State Department of Transportation, 366 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), this case does not involve an agency’s departure from a long-standing construction of statutory authority; rather, in the present case DOT corrected an erroneous factual determination, predicated upon the applicant’s misrepresentation, in accordance with continuing consistent statutory construction. Appellant’s permits are properly subject to revocation pursuant to section 479.08, insofar as the permit applications contained knowingly false or misleading information.
Appellant also suggests that equitable estoppel should apply, or that compensation should be required for removal of a nonconforming sign. But appellant has not established equities which would warrant an estoppel, nor does appellant have a nonconforming sign as that term is defined by section 479.01(12), Florida Statutes.
The order appealed is affirmed.
MILLS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tri-State Sys., Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp., 500 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…s not present the testimony of other knowledgeable witnesses under its control which would merely be cumulative or corroborative. Weeks v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 132 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). . Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. DOT, 492 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), does not require a contrary result because the decision is materially distinguishable. Apart from the fact that the case involved revocation of a permit held by the original applicant on grounds that the application falsely repr…1 / 2
-
T & L Mgmt., Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp., 497 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ned knowingly false and misleading statements. The permit in BL-235 was accordingly revocable pursuant to section [*687] 479.08 as containing false and misleading statements. See Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 492 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Case Nos. BL-438 and BM-98: In both these cases the hearing officer made specific findings of fact that the businesses which provided the basis for approval of the sign permits by the department were located in structures princ…
-
Occidental Chem. Agric. Prods., Inc. v. State, 501 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…tate Systems, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 497 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); T & L Management, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 497 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 492 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Chipley Motel v. Department of Transportation, 498 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Finally, we reject, as patently without merit, OCAPI’s broad assertion that issues of equitable estoppel are “too complicated” for resolution u…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lyman Walker, III v. State, 366 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)