Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, Lake Shore West Apartment at 1340 Nortwest 95th Street in Miami, Florida, was licensed as an apartment hose by petitioner, under the provisions of Section 509.241, Florida Statutes (1979). Ms. Joanne Boldin moved into an apartment at Lake Shore West Apartments on October 1, 1976. At that time she signed a lease, paid first and last months' rent, and made a security deposit of ninety-nine dollars ($99.00). On October 13, 1978, she executed a renewal lease covering the period of October 1, 1978, to September 30, 1979. Prior to September 30, 1979, Ms. Boldin apprised respondent's manager of her unwillingness to execute another renewal lease, because of proposed rent increases, but asked to hold over until November 30, 1979, without executing a lease renewal, provided that she continued to pay her monthly rent in advance, not on the first of the month but on the 15th of the preceding month. He did not mention the security deposit. At not time did respondent furnish Ms. Boldin a copy of Chapter 83, Florida Statutes (1979), or an address or other written means for contacting any partner or employee of respondent licensee. On November 23, 1979, Ms. Boldin vacated her apartment. Subsequently, respondent caused the "last month's rent" Ms. Boldin had paid in October of 1976 to be retunred to her with interest. Respondent has never returned her security deposit or given written notice of a claim against the security deposit.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner impose a fine against respondent in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00). DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of October, 1980. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jo M. Gallay, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lake Shore Investment Lake Shore West Apartments Attention Mr. Abraham Al Goldman 1340 Northwest 95 Street Miami, Florida 33150 Lewis Reif State Office Building Room 538 1350 Northwest 12 Avenue Miami, Florida 33136
The Issue Whether the sign which was located at the northwest corner of US #41 and State Road 862, 50 feet west from US #41 on Vanderbilt Road, with the copy "La Playa Motor Inn" and "La Playa Motor Inn", found there on October 8, 1975, continuing through February 19, 1976 was in violation of the following: Chapter 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, which requires a permit for the erection of a sign. Chapter 478.07(7), Florida Statutes, which requires the name of owner or advertiser be affixed to the face of the sign structure. Chapter 479.02(2), Florida Statutes, which sets forth certain requirements of spacing.
Findings Of Fact At a time prior to October 8, 1975, Seminole Vanderbilt Corporation, which trades as La Playa Motor Inn and is owned by P. M. Francoeur, sole owner and president, leased a sign from Richard O. Radenbaugh. This sign was located in the vicinity of the northwest corner of US #41 and State Road 862, 50 feet west from US #41 on Vanderbilt Road. Subsequent to the time that the sign was leased to the Seminole Vanderbilt Corporation, Richard O. Radenbaugh entered into a contract to sell the space and the sign to the Department of Transportation. The sale was effected and the sign was removed. P. M. Francoeur, as President and leaseholder on the sign was not told that the subject sign would be sold, prior to the negotiations and sale between Mr. Radenbaugh and the Department of Transportation. Consequently, the original sign with the copy "La Playa Motor Inn" was removed without his knowledge; Mr. Francoeur went to a County Commissioners meeting in Collier County, Florida and Mr. Radenbaugh spoke with Mr. Francoeur at that time and promised to give him a vacant sign which had the copy "King Crown Inn". This sign was located immediately west of the "La Playa Motor Inn" former sign. Mr. Francoeur accepted that offer and caused workmen to go to the location and to remove the "King Crown Inn" sign and have it refurbished for purposes of installation at the general location of the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. When this refurbishing and site location was accomplished, it left two signs in the area that originally had three signs. There was now, an unrelated sign and the new "La Playa Motor Inn" sign which had been constructed from the former "King Crown Inn" sign; as opposed to, the unrelated sign, the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign which had been sold to the Department of Transportation and removed, and the "King Crown Inn" sign which was in the immediate area west of the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. Mr. James A. Hachett, outdoor advertising inspector with the Department of Transportation, was aware that the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign had been sold and removed. When he went by the subject location after the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign had been sold and removed, he discovered that a new sign with the copy "La Playa Motor Inn" had been erected in the general area where the original "La Playa Motor Inn" had been located. He also noted that the "King Crown Inn" sign was no longer located in a position west of the space which had been occupied by the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. In addition, the new "La Playa Motor Inn" sign was not in the exact location as the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. On a closer examination, Mr. Hachett discovered that there were three identifying permit tags affixed to the new "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. One tag was the permit tag from the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign, and the other two tags were from the sign west of the location, which sign was the "King Crown Inn" sign. These former permit tags were affixed to each side of the double faced advertising sign. It was after this examination that the "La Playa Motor Inn", in the person of P. M. Francoeur was notified of the prospective violations as ultimately alleged in the October 8, 1975 complaint. Francoeur was notified by an alleged violation statement addressed to the Seminole Vanderbilt Corporation, which owns "La Playa Motor Inn". As of February 19, 1976, at the time of the hearing, the new "La Playa Motor Inn" sign which is in fact the refurbished structure which was the "King Crown Inn" sign, located west of the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign, is still standing in the general, but not exact position of the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. Application for permit by the Seminole Vanderbilt Corporation t/a "La Playa Motor Inn" for the benefit of the copy, "La Playa Motor Inn" has not been applied for since the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign was sold to the Department of Transportation and removed. Application has been made for a renewal of the permit which is associated with the "King Crown Inn" sign which was refurbished and became the subsequent "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. In describing the location of the new "La Playa Motor Inn" sign, it is somewhere between the location of the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign and the "King Crown Inn" sign, but not in the exact location of either of those original signs.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner afford the Respondent 30 days within which to remove the sign or take satisfactory steps to obtain a permit for the sign, after which time the Petitioner, in accordance with Chapter 335.13(2), Florida Statutes, shall cause such sign to be removed. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operation Mr. P. M. Francoeur, President Department of Transportation c/o La Playa Motor Inn 605 Suwannee Street 9091 Gulf Shore Drive Haydon Burns Building Naples, Florida 33940 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent should revoke Petitioner's sign permits and retrieve Petitioner's permit tags because Petitioner violated Sections 479.07(5) and 479.08, Florida Statutes, 1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 10.004(7), 2/ by allegedly removing its sign from its property and by failing to display the permit tag prior to removing the sign.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation formed in 1983 by Mr. Rodney Forton. Mr. Forton is the president and sole shareholder of Petitioner. Sometime in 1987, Petitioner entered into a management agreement with Cotee River Outdoor Advertising Company ("Cotee River"). The management agreement provided that Cotee River would construct a sign on property owned by Petitioner on U.S. highway 19 in New Port Richey, Florida (the "Cotee River sign"). Cotee River agreed to pay Petitioner a portion of the advertising revenues from the sign. The Cotee River Permit On May 26, 1987, Cotee River applied for an outdoor advertising sign permit from Respondent. The application described the Cotee River sign as a rectangular wood sign measuring 10 feet by 20 feet, with its lowest point approximately 15 feet above ground level and its highest point approximately 25 feet above the crown of the road. Respondent approved the application and mailed the approval to Cotee River on May 29, 1987. On June 3, 1987, Respondent located the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory at, Section 595, ". . . N/B 5.06 in F/N." The number "5.06" indicates that the sign is located at milepost 5.06 on U.S. 19. 3/ Mileposts describe the location of each sign by the distance of the sign from a fixed point. Each of Respondent's outdoor advertising inspectors measures the milepost for each sign in his or her territory using a distance measuring instrument. Respondent then enters the milepost for each sign in Respondent's sign inventory. The milepost of 5.06 that Respondent assigned to the Cotee River permit was incorrect. In May 1987, Cotee River constructed a sign on Petitioner's property pursuant to the permit granted by Respondent. The sign was a metal monopole sign rather than the wood sign described in the application. The Cotee River sign was not constructed at milepost 5.060. Cotee River rented the sign to outdoor advertisers. However, Cotee River failed to pay any portion of the advertising revenue to Petitioner, and the parties resolved the matter by mutual agreement. Petitioner and Cotee River agreed that Cotee River would release its right to manage the Cotee River sign in consideration for the right to manage a sign located on other property owned by Petitioner. The agreement provided that Petitioner would pay Cotee River a prescribed sum in exchange for the performance of specific duties by Cotee River. Cotee River failed to perform the duties specified in the agreement. Petitioner refused to pay the balance of payments. Petitioner sued Cotee River. Cotee River went into bankruptcy and was dissolved. Petitioner's Permit On July 14, 1992, Petitioner applied for an outdoor advertising sign permit for the Cotee River sign. The application described the sign as an existing rectangular, metal, monopole "sign in place," measuring approximately 10 feet by 20 feet. The application stated that the sign was first erected in May 1987. Respondent approved the application from Petitioner and mailed the approval to Petitioner on October 12, 1992. Respondent again incorrectly listed the location of the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory as, Section 595, ". . . N/B 5.060 in F/N." Respondent issued permit tag number BG341-25 to Petitioner. Although Petitioner used the Cotee River sign to generate advertising revenue, Petitioner never displayed any tag numbers on the sign. The tag numbers remained in Petitioner's files until sometime in 1995. Dr. Goluba's Permit At about the same time that Cotee River went out of business in 1992, Robert L. Goluba, D.D.S., owned property immediately adjacent to Petitioner's property. Prior to March 1993, an unidentified representative of Respondent contacted Dr. Goluba. The representative told Dr. Goluba that there were two signs on Dr. Goluba's property that were going to be taken down if the sign permits were not renewed. The representative mistakenly identified one of the two signs as the Cotee River sign. The representative went on to explain that Respondent could avoid the expense of taking down the two signs if Dr. Goluba obtained permits for the signs. Dr. Goluba wanted the advertising revenues and agreed to obtain the necessary permits. On March 2, 1993, Dr. Goluba applied for a sign permit for the Cotee River sign he mistakenly believed to be located on his property. The application described the sign as an "existing" rectangular, metal, monopole sign measuring approximately 10 feet by 24 feet, with its lowest point approximately 18 feet above ground level and its highest point approximately 30 feet above the crown of the road. The application stated that the sign was first erected in May 1987. Respondent approved the application from Dr. Goluba and mailed the approval to him on March 8, 1993. Respondent listed the location of the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory as, Section 595, ". . . N/M.P. 4.870 in F/N." Respondent incorrectly listed Dr. Goluba's permit in the sign inventory at milepost 4.870. On March 24, 1993, Respondent issued permit number BG960-35 to Dr. Goluba. Although Dr. Goluba never derived advertising revenue from the Cotee River sign, he did display his permit on the sign. Dr. Goluba inadvertently failed to pay the fee required to renew the sign permit in 1994 and, therefore, failed to display current permits on the sign. On April 11, 1994, Respondent issued a Notice of Violation, Failure To Display Permit Tag. The New Outdoor Advertising Inspector In early 1995, a new outdoor advertising inspector assumed responsibility for the territory in which the Cotee River sign was located. On April 11, 1995, the inspector conducted a field inspection to verify the mileposts and signs in the territory for which he was responsible. The inspector correctly identified the milepost of the Cotee River sign as milepost 4.980. He found no sign subject to regulation by Respondent 4/ located at milepost 5.060. Milepost 5.060 and 4.980 are approximately 422 feet apart. Relevant law prohibits the location of regulated signs within 1,000 feet of each other. 5/ No exceptions to 1,000 foot prohibition applied to the Cotee River sign. The inspector concluded that Petitioner had removed the wood sign originally permitted to Cotee River in 1987 and which Respondent had incorrectly listed in its sign inventory as being located at milepost 5.060. On July 12, 1995, Respondent issued to Petitioner a Notice Of Violation -- Removed Sign. On August 22, 1995, Respondent ordered the revocation of Petitioner's tag permit because Petitioner had allegedly removed the Cotee River sign from milepost 5.060. Respondent never issued a Notice of Violation to Petitioner for failure to display his tag numbers on the Cotee River sign. Petitioner protested the revocation of its permit and refused to return the permit tags to Respondent. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. In the meantime, Dr. Goluba's accountant had inadvertently failed to pay the permit fee for the Cotee River sign. Respondent placed the Cotee River sign on Respondent's "cutdown list" for failure to pay the required fees. On June 20, 1995, Respondent had the Cotee River sign cut down and removed. Respondent sent Dr. Goluba a bill in the amount of $4,990 for the cost of cutting the sign down and removing it. Prior to the date Respondent cut down and removed the Cotee River sign, Petitioner notified the inspector verbally and with written documentation that the sign was owned by Petitioner, located on Petitioner's property, and permitted to Petitioner. The inspector found that Respondent's records did not agree with Petitioner's records. The inspector informed Petitioner that the "cutdown order" came from Tallahassee and there was nothing the inspector could do. Dr. Goluba's tags were displayed on the Cotee River sign at the time it was cut down and removed. Ms. Maria Passanisi was the broker who managed the sign for Dr. Goluba. Ms. Passanisi was at the site when the sign was cut down and removed. She protested Respondent's action so vehemently that the police officers regulating traffic at the scene had to intervene to quell the disturbance. After Respondent cut down the Cotee River sign, Petitioner drove a stick into the ground where the sign had been located and displayed the permit tags for the removed sign on the stick. The tags were displayed on the stick at the time of the hearing. The Computerized Sign Inventory Respondent uses a computer system to maintain its sign inventory. The computer system does not accept the same milepost for two or more regulated signs. When Petitioner applied for its sign permit in 1992, Respondent was required to carry the Cotee River permit in the inventory as a void permit. The computer system would not accept the same milepost for Petitioner's permit and the void Cotee River permit. In order to circumvent the computer system, Respondent's supervisor of property management arbitrarily changed the milepost number entered for the Cotee River permit from milepost 5.060 to milepost 4.970. As late as September 20, 1993, Respondent's computerized sign inventory identified the Cotee River sign as being located at three incorrect mileposts. The inventory located the same sign permitted to Cotee River, Petitioner, and Dr. Goluba, respectively, at mileposts 4.970, 5.060, and 4.870. In 1995, the new outdoor advertising inspector correctly located the Cotee River sign at milepost 4.980. However, he mistakenly assumed that milepost 5.060 was the correct milepost for Petitioner's sign and erroneously concluded that Petitioner had removed its sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not remove the permitted sign and that the permits issued to Petitioner are valid. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 24th day of July, 1997.
Findings Of Fact The upland property abutting the proposed marina is zoned CTF-28, which provides for the complete range of motel-hotel developments. Type A Marina facilities are permitted as a special exception in a CTF-28 district. The property owned by Petitioners is presently occupied by a 16-room motel with 15 designated parking spaces and fronts on the water. Riprap extends approximately six feet from the seawall and Petitioners propose to install a dock nine feet wide covering this riprap and extending some 83 feet, with six finger piers extending seaward from the seawall to provide the 12 boat slips for which this special exception pertains. Petitioners intend to convert the existing motel from single ownership to a condominium and sell the motel rooms as units to separate owners but continue to operate the facility as a motel. (Art. 12.1, Exhibit 2.) The Declaration of Condominium (Exhibit 2) which was received as a late-filed exhibit, is incomplete in that Exhibits A, B, C and D, which the Declaration states are made a part of the Declaration, were not attached to the copy of Exhibit 2 which was received. The proposed boat slips or dock is designated in the Declaration as Limited Common Elements. Art. 2.12 of Exhibit 2 provides that: Limited Common Elements, if any, are those portions of the Common Elements which are reserved for or attributable to the exclusive use of a certain Unit Owner whether such use is assigned as an appurtenance to a Unit or separate thereto including, but not limited to, boat docks assigned as appurtenances to specific individual units. The boat slips presumably are assigned to specific motel units as appurtenances thereto. (Art. 6.1, Exhibit 2.) Article 12.2 provides no unit owner or lessee of a unit owner may lease or sublease any Limited Common Element including, but not limited to, any boat dock assigned as an appurtenance to a specific unit. Similar provisions are made for the existing automobile parking spaces which are also designated Limited Common Elements and appurtenant to a specific unit (Art. 6.2, Exhibit 2). Respondent's primary concern, and the reason this application was denied by the Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Zoning is the effect the proposed marina will have on parking on Clearwater Beach. Vehicular parking is a serious problem confronting Clearwater Beach at this time. Further aggravation of this problem will adversely affect the public interest. A special exception for a seven-slip Class A marina was granted to the Sea Gull Motel, located in the same general area, less than one year ago. The Sea Gull converted to cooperative ownership instead of into a condominium as Petitioners here propose. The Sea Gull continues to operate as a motel, with multiple ownership of the units, just as Petitioners propose. Absent Exhibits A, B, C and D to Exhibit 2, it is not possible to tell which boat slip is appurtenant to which motel unit or that one slip may not be appurtenant to more than one motel unit. Since multiple ownership of a single unit is contemplated by the developer (Art. 13.2.3, Exhibit 2) the possibility exists that one of the joint owners could occupy the motel unit while another occupied the boat slip appurtenant to the unit. The proposed slips propose no/hazard to navigation or interfere with the enjoyment of the waters adjacent thereto by the general public.
