THE EDDY CORP. AND MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
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.
McDonald's Corporation and The Eddy Corporation appealed a Department of Transportation determination that an advertising sign on their property violated Florida's sign code as an "off-premises" sign. The court reversed, holding that despite the unusual shape of the property and distance of the sign from the restaurant building, the sign qualified as an "on-premises" sign because it was located on the same contiguous parcel as the restaurant and advertised only that restaurant.
The court held that the sign is an "on-premises" sign and therefore exempt from permitting provisions because it is located on the same contiguous parcel occupied by the restaurant building, is an integral part of the restaurant establishment, and is used only in conjunction with that restaurant, regardless of the odd shape of the premises or distance from the building.
[1] A sign advertising a business is considered an "on-premises" sign, and thus exempt from permitting requirements, when it is located on the same contiguous parcel of land…
[2] The definition of "premises" for purposes of outdoor advertising regulations includes an area of land occupied by buildings and other physical uses integral to the conduc…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The sign, the restaurant building, and the "open space" around and between them are arranged and designed to be, and are, used in conjunction with the one restaurant.”
Establishes that the sign and building function as integrated parts of a single commercial operation on one premises
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcDonald's owns and Eddy Corporation leases a uniquely shaped parcel of land near Interstate 4 and State Road 46 in Seminole County, Florida. A McDona…
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.
COWART, Judge.
Near the intersection of Interstate 4 and State Road 46 near Sanford, in Seminole County, Florida, McDonald’s Corporation owns, and The Eddy Corporation leases, a parcel of land roughly shaped like the upper body of a human with one arm raised with the elbow bent. A McDonald’s restaurant is located on the body part with an outdoor sign advertising the restaurant located at where would be the hand of the upraised arm.
The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) took the position that the sign violated chapter 479, Florida Statutes, in that it was an “off-premises” sign and was erected without DOT approval. The evidence presented to the hearing officer consisted of little more than some photographs and testimony about the location of trees, shrubs, a drainage ditch, a power line right of way, the restaurant building, and future plans for more intensive use of the “arm” portion of the property. The hearing officer concluded that the sign was “off-premises” and the landowner and lessee appeal. The facts are not in dispute. We find the hearing officer’s interpretation of the statutes and his application of the laws to the undisputed facts to be clearly erroneous and reverse.
Both the restaurant and the sign in question are located on a single contiguous parcel of land consisting of but one business premises1 upon which is located but one establishment, being the restaurant, and the sign in question which advertises that restaurant. The sign is an appurtenance to, and an integral part of, the restaurant establishment which is the only activity conducted upon this parcel of land. The sign, the restaurant building, and the “open space” around and between them are arranged and designed to be, and are, used in conjunction with the one restaurant. Neither the sign nor the land upon which it is located is used for any activity other than the restaurant use.2 However oddly shaped the premises is, and however distant 3 the sign is from the restaurant building, the sign is on one and the same premises or area of land occupied by the restaurant building and business it advertises, is an “on-premises” sign within the meaning of sections 479.01(13) and 479.16(1), Florida Statutes, and is exempt from the permit ting provisions of chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
The order of the hearing officer is REVERSED.
ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur. . Under section 479.01(13), Florida Statutes, “ ’premises’ means an area of land occupied by the buildings or other physical uses which are an integral part of the activity conducted upon the land and such open spaces as are arranged and designed to be used in conjunction with that activity.” [emphasis supplied]
. See, e.g., Hausman v. First Baptist Church, 513 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
.See Harrison v. State, Department of Transportation, 349 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Since Harrison, section 479.16(1), Florida Statutes, was amended to eliminate the requirement that, to be exempt, an "on-premises” sign could not be more than 100 feet from the place of business.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McDonald's Corp. v. Dep't of Transp., 535 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…ithin thirty days of the date of the order. On appeal, appellant contends that the DOT’s order is a departure from the essential requirements of the law. Appellant contends that this case is controlled by Eddy Corp. v. Department of Transportation, 522 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). In Eddy, the fifth district reversed a DOT order holding that appellant’s sign was an off-premises sign which was erected without DOT approval and in violation of chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The court held: Near the intersec…
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. OF Margarette Price v. W. Fla. Hosp., Inc., 513 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Harrison v. State, 349 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)