The Issue There are three issues presented: Whether the signs in question were erected at such a time and under such conditions that would entitle them to be permitted; Whether the signs in question, if not entitled to a permit, have some type of grandfather status where the owner would be entitled to compensation for the removal; and Whether the signs in question qualify as on-premise signs not requiring a permit. Both parties submitted detailed proposed recommended orders, which have been read and considered. There are few disputes concerning the basic facts. To the extent the findings herein differ from the proposals, those findings are based upon the most credible evidence. Certain findings have been deleted because they are not relevant to the issues or are not findings of fact.
Findings Of Fact The signs in question in Cases No. 81-1672T and 81-1675T are on the north-facing wall of the "El Okey Market" at 1630 NW 27th Avenue in Miami, Florida. Each sign is an aluminum framed poster six by 12 feet. An inspector of the Department of Transportation (Department) Investigated the signs at the El Okey Market in March of 1981, and notices of violation were issued to Empire Outdoor Advertising (Empire) on May 11, 1981. The parties stipulated that the inspection revealed neither sign bears a valid outdoor advertising permit issued by the Department. The signs are visible to traffic traveling south on 27th Avenue and are located within 660 feet of the right of way Empire has acknowledged owning the signs in question The inspector's investigation of the El Okey Market signs also revealed the existence of a permitted outdoor advertising sign, owned by another sign company, which is located approximately 70 feet south of the Empire signs and which also faces north. The Department introduced into evidence a map, certified by a Department official, which shows the Federal-Aid Primary Highway System for the Miami area as it existed in 1979. The inspector located the El Okey Market on the map, which indicates that that portion of 27th Avenue was a Federal-Aid Primary Highway in 1979. No contrary evidence was introduced. At the location of the subject signs, 27th Avenue is a Federal-Aid Primary Highway. The Vice President and General Manager of Empire testified that the present company evolved from a firm called Peppi Advertising Company started by his father, and that he had been employed by the company since the early 1950's. The firm was sold to Donnelly Advertising and then to Ackerly Communications, and continued to operate as Empire. The firm obtained a building permit on June 6, 1965, for the erection of billboard-type signs on the side of the building located at 1630 NW 27th Avenue. The Vice President testified it was company policy to erect signs shortly after the permit was issued. He further testified that he serviced the poster through the 1960's. The signs in question were erected in 1965, and have been in existence since that date. No permits were applied for when the signs became subject to regulation in 1971. Photographs had been taken of the signs in question showing advertising copy on July 15, 1982, to consist of Kraft Mayonnaise and EverReady Energizer Batteries. Advertising copy on June 24, 1982, shows Kraft Cheese and J & B Scotch in Spanish. The above items are products of national companies who pay Empire to advertise their products. Empire pays the El Okey Market for the privilege of placing the signs on the wall of the market. The signs in question are not on-premise signs. Patrick D. Galvin, the Department's Administrator for outdoor advertising, testified that it is the Department's policy to deny permits to signs lawfully erected within the city limits prior to the date such signs became subject to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, where the sign is less than the prescribed distance from a second sign which has obtained a valid outdoor advertising permit from the Department. It is the inspector's practice to recommend that a permit be issued to applicants where the sign in question has no permit but was built before the date permits became required and is otherwise a lawful sign. The Department admitted policy is that lawfully erected signs may lose their grandfather status as nonconforming signs under Chapter 479 and may thus become subject to uncompensated removal because the owner failed to obtain a permit within the 60-days period which followed the effective date of Florida's outdoor advertising regulations.
Recommendation The Department of Transportation has shown that the signs in question are subject to removal because they have been in existence for more than five years since they became nonconforming. The Department may remove the signs at anytime upon payment to the owner for full value of the subject signs which were erected prior to December 8, 1971. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 L. Martin Reeder, Jr., Esquire Jeffrey Bercow, Esquire 1400 SE Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Paul N. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, E. A. Hancock Advertising, Inc., erected two double face outdoor advertising signs in June, 1975, in an unincorporated part of Broward County, Florida, without first obtaining a permit from the Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation. Two of the signs face north and two signs face south. Each sign structure has two faces. After erection the Respondents applied for permits but permits were refused by Petitioner and violation notices dated October 22, 1975, were sent to Respondents indicating that Respondent was in violation of the outdoor advertising laws by erecting signs without permits and erecting "two separate signs erected illegally (which] can be seen from 1-95." After much correspondence between the parties, the matter was set-for hearing November 9, 1976, was thereafter continued and finally heard on July 12, 1977, more than two years after the erection of the signs. The signs were constructed on a county secondary road known as Ravenwood Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and more definitely located as "south from 3497 Ravenwood Road. The road is one lane in each direction and is the type of road usually known as a service road. The billboard signs are elevated to a height of approximately 25 feet from the ground to the top of the sign and sit back about 15 feet from the secondary road. Although the signs can easily be read by travelers on Ravenwood Road, signs designed primarily to serve this two lane road would as a practical matter have been much smaller and much closer to the ground and the message would have had smaller letters. The signs are a "visual overkill" for travelers on Ravenwood Road. See "Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1" and the Polaroid pictures taken from Ravenwood Road. The signs are elevated to less than 25 feet above 1-95. One sign is about 190 feet from the south lane of the interstate highway and the other about 191 feet from the south lane of the highway. Both signs are on the west side of the interstate highway. The two sign structures are approximately 300 feet apart. One sign is approximately 500 feet from an existing sign and the other is approximately 850 feet from an existing sign. The large size lettering on the large signs are clearly visible to the motoring public on interstate highway 1-95. Three of the four signs are visible and can easily be read by motorists going either north or south on the interstate highway. Evidence is unclear as to whether one side of one of the double space signs is clearly visible from the interstate highway. Copy on the signs is changed from time to time, but at the time the pictures entered into evidence were taken from the interstate highway, copy read, "WHITEHALL PRESTIGE LIQUORS A GREAT VODKA" and "HOLSUM Baked just right for you." The advertising is large and can be read in the Polaroid snapshots that were taken by Petitioner while on the interstate highway and entered in the record as "Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1." Application for sign permits was made June 16, 1975 to the Broward County Planning, Building and Zoning Department. Permits were issued by the county and were affixed to the signs. The Hearing Officer further finds: The subject signs were constructed primarily to be read by the public traveling on the interstate highway. The size of the signs, the size of the lettering, the elevation of the signs and the angle of the signs provide insurance that messages can be easily read by those traveling on the interstate. The traffic on the interstate is much heavier than traffic on Ravenwood Road. The Petitioner contends that the Respondent is in violation of outdoor advertising laws: No permit was applied for or granted before the outdoor advertising signs were constructed by Respondent. The signs were constructed primarily to be read by the public traveling on 1-95, an interstate highway. The setback of tho Respondent's signs is less than 660 feet from the interstate highway. The signs should be removed as violating the state statutes as well as the federal code laws, rules and regulations contained in the "Highway Beautification Act." Broward County has not submitted to the administrator of the state evidence that it has established effective control with regard to size, spacing, height and lighting requirements contrary to the agreement of the Governor authorized by Section 479.02. Broward County does not enforce any outdoor advertising requirements even if it could be shown the zoning was in compliance with Title 1 of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and Title 23, U.S. Code as required by Section 479.02 and the agreement executed pursuant thereto. Respondent contends that: It secured permits from Broward County and attached them to the subject signs. Broward County had zoned the area M-3 and that it is a commercial zone. The signs were erected primarily to be read by the public traveling on Ravenwood Road. There are no spacing requirements of a thousand feet between advertising signs under the Florida law and that even if there were they had not been formerly charged with violating spacing requirements. Public Law 89-285, passed by the 89th Congress of the United States on October 22, 1965, allowed the states and the federal government to agree to set-back for signs nearer than 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right of way in areas zomed industrial or commercial. The agreement between the Governor and the federal government made provisions for local governments to regulate size, lighting and spacing requirements. That in fact the ratification of the Governor's Agreenent under Section 479.02 is not the enactment of a law. The Petitioner has in fact issued permits to others after signs have been constructed and should issue a permit for subject signs to Respondent. At the subject hearing the attorneys for both parties indicated that they desired to submit a Memorandum of Law but neither party submitted a memorandum.
Recommendation Require the Respondent to remove its signs within thirty (30) days from the date of the Final Order. Invoke the penalties of Section 479.18 for violation of Chapter 479. The Department of Transportation has ample enforcement power to remove the signs under Section 479.02 aside from the agreement: Brazil v. Division of Administration, 347 So.2d 755. See also Section 335.13 which states in part: "(1) No person shall erect any billboard or advertisement adjacent to the right-of-way of the state highway system, outside the corporate limits of any city or town, except as provided for in chapter 479." DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert D. Korner, Esquire 4790 Tamiami Trail W. 8th Street Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the stipulations of fact entered into by the parties and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The two signs and four sign faces (hereinafter, the signs) which are the subject of these proceedings are owned by the Respondent and are outdoor advertising signs as defined in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. One sign is located on U.S. 1, 1.35 miles north of Industrial Road, Big Pine Key (DOAH Case Numbers 86-2294T and 86- 2295T) and the other sign is located on U.S. 1, 1.25 miles north of Industrial Road, Big Pine Key (DOAH Case Numbers 86-2296T and 86-2297T) The Respondent purchased the signs from the Daley Outdoor Advertising Company in 1984. The signs are adjacent to and visible from U.S. 1 in Monroe County. U.S. 1 or State Road 5, is a federal-aid primary highway. U.S. 1 was open for public use at the time the notices of violation were placed on the signs. All of the signs are located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of U.S. 1, State Road 5. The area in which the signs are located is zoned "GU". Mr. William Kenney is employed as the outdoor advertising administrator for the Department of Transportation, District VI. On May 29, 1986, Mr. Kenney inspected the signs and noticed that neither of the signs had a state outdoor advertising permit tag attached. At that time, Kenney placed a notice of violation on each sign face. After placing the notice of violation stickers on the signs, Kenney examined the Department of Transportation's office records pertaining to outdoor advertising signs and found no evidence of permit tags having ever been issued for the signs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued declaring that the signs involved in these cases are illegal and must be immediately removed. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of January, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Charles C. Papy, III, Esquire 201 Alhambra Circle Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In May and June of 1983 the Department received in its district office in Chipley, Florida, applications for four permits for outdoor advertising signs to be located adjacent to I-10, approximately one mile west of S.R. 285, in Walton County, Florida. Two of these applications requested permits to erect a two-faced, back-to-back structure on I-10, 4,262 feet west of S.R. 285, and two of these applications sought permits to erect a two-faced, back-to-back structure on I-10, 5,262 feet west of S.R. 285. These permit applications stated that the locations requested were in a commercial or industrial area within 800 feet of a business. The Department's outdoor advertising inspector approved these permit applications in June of 1983. When he visited the sites he found a small building, approximately eight to ten feet by approximately ten to twelve feet in dimension, situated at a point 300 feet from one of the sign sites and 700 feet from the other site. There was a pile of steel lying on the ground adjacent to this building. He was told by the Respondent's president that the Respondent's plan was to put an office on the site, and a building on which to work on signs and to store material. On the basis of his inspection of the site, coupled with these representations of the Respondent's president, the inspector approved the four applications for sign permits. Subsequently, in 1984 after the permits had been issued, the small building had been removed and was replaced by a shed and another small building. However, in 1983 at the time the applications for permits were submitted, the site where the business activity was planned did not have telephone service, nor did this location have any mailing address, and there were no employees of the Respondent on the site until 1984. The Respondent obtained this location for the purpose and with the intent of locating its sign business thereon, but when the permit applications were submitted the site had not yet become a commercial location. Much of the evidence presented by both sides at the hearing concerned activities conducted at the location between the two sign sites subsequent to the time when the permit applications were submitted. However, this is irrelevant. The salient facts are that the president of the Respondent knew that a business activity within 800 feet of the sign site was required in order to obtain lawful permits; he intended to establish his own sign business at a location between the two sign sites which would comply with the permitting requirements; but in June of 1983 when the permit applications were submitted, there was not then in existence any business activity within 800 feet of the proposed sign sites. Thus, the statement of the Respondent on its applications that the proposed sign sites were in an unzoned commercial area within 800 feet of a business was false, and the Respondent's president knew this when he submitted the applications.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permits numbered AJ511-12, AJ510-12, AJ509-12 and AJ508- 12, held by Reese Outdoor Displays, Inc., be revoked, and the signs which were erected pursuant to these permits be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 20th day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 George Ralph Miller, Esquire P.O. Box 687 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the respondents or some of them erected and maintained outdoor advertising signs in violation of Rule 14-10.006(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, because more than two advertisements or "messages" were visible to motorists at the same location?
Findings Of Fact Visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards both of the same, concededly lawful size, mounted on a single structure, one on top of the other, 1.75 miles east of State Road 69 in Jackson County. The upper sign advertises a Holiday Inn in Marianna. The bottom sign advertises a Best Western motel (yellow logo against black background) and a McDonald's restaurant (golden arches and white lettering against a red background.) Between the two businesses's names on the bottom sign board appears "11 MI EXIT 21" against a white background. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1716T). Also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted on the same structure, one on top of the other, 2.4 miles east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises the Chipley Motel. Over the words "THIS EXIT," the central portion of the lower sign advertises a Stuckey's store. Flanking this central portion, both ends of the billboard are taken up with advertisements featuring petroleum trademarks (a scallop shell and a star.) Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1714T). Visible to east-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted one on top of the other on the same poles, 1.2 miles west of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises a single business establishment. Underneath, half the sign is devoted to advertising the Washington Motor Inn and half to touting The Outlet Center. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1923T). Visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted on the same structure one on top of the other, 2.7 miles east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advises motorists of the proximity of a motel. The lower sign advertises both a Chevron filling station and a Western Sizzlin restaurant, devoting half the panel to each. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1921T). Also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 is a pair of billboards mounted one over the other at a site 1.3 miles west of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper panel is devoted exclusively to informing the driving public of a nearby motel. The lower billboard, like the lower billboard located 1.7 miles east of State Road 69, advertises a McDonald's restaurant and a Best Western motel, and does so in a similar bipartite manner. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89- 1922T) Finally, also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 is another pair of billboards mounted on top of one another on the same poles, a mile east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises a McDonald's restaurant. Like the lower sign located 2.4 miles east of State Road 77, the lower sign located a mile east advertises not only Stuckey's, but also Shell and Texaco gasolines. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1924T). A handbook DOT employees use depicts three billboards at one location, over the caption: "One of the three faces is illegal if erected after January 28, 1972. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. DOT has not promulgated the handbook as a rule. The evidence did not establish when the billboards in question here were erected. But for Milford C. Truette's perspicacity, these cases might never have arisen. As acting outdoor advertising supervisor for DOT's District II, he told Elsie Myrick, a property and outdoor advertising inspector for DOT, that she "might want to check into ... [the signs involved here] and see that they were in violation." Myrick deposition p. 8. In the subsequently formed opinion of Ms. Myrick, it is unlawful for an outdoor advertising sign to advertise three or more locations at which the same advertiser does business or three or more businesses at the same location, although the proprietor of a single store might lawfully advertise three or more products for sale at the store, and a motel owner is free to advertise a restaurant and a cocktail lounge, at least if they are under the same roof. Respondent's signs are in violation, in Ms. Myrick's view, because, "You're getting across more messages than what you're allowed in a space." Myrick deposition, p. 15. Ms. Myrick thought a sign advertising several stores housed in a single mall would be illegal, but Mr. Truette and Mr. Kissinger, DOT motorist information services coordinator, disagreed. Ms. Myrick rejected the suggestion that common ownership of advertisers would make a difference, but Mr. Kissinger's views on this point were less clear. T.52-3. Mr. Kissinger believes that an outdoor advertising sign can advertise multiple locations at which an enterprise conducts business, or even multiple business entities, if they are all located on the same parcel of real estate.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the notices to show cause issued in each of these consolidated cases. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 89-1714T, 89-1716T, 89-1921T, 89-1922T, 89-1923T, 89-1924 Except for the last sentence in proposed finding of fact No. 4, petitioner's proposed findings of fact 1 through 5 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact were not numbered, but have been treated fully in the recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact The Steakery and the Sugarloaf Leisure Club are businesses in Summerland Key, Monroe County, Florida, that are owned by William A. Hare. For the past four years, Mr. Hare has, on behalf of his respective businesses, leased two outdoor advertising signs that are located on the same support structure with one sign being directly above the other. On one sign there appears an advertisement for The Steakery while on the other there appears an advertisement for the Sugarloaf Leisure Club. These two signs face are located in Monroe County, Florida, on the northbound side of U.S. 1, a federal-aid primary highway. The support structure for the signs is approximately 10 feet from the highway. No permit has been issued by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) for either sign. The signs are located in a part of Monroe County which is zoned "Native Area". This area is not zoned commercial or industrial and is not an unzoned commercial or industrial area. The signs are not located on the business premises of the sign owner. The signs were inspected by the DOT's Outdoor Advertising Inspector and found to have no state sign permits attached them. On October 5, 1989, DOT caused to be filed against the two signs notices that neither sign had the permit required by law and that the zoning for the location of the signs did not permit outdoor advertising signs. Respondents have not contested the method by which the notices were posted. Mr. Hare, on behalf of his businesses, filed a timely demand for formal hearing following his receipt of the notices of violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order which finds that permits required by law have not been issued for the subject signs, that the signs are in a location that is ineligible for permitting because of its zoning, and which orders the immediate removal of the subject signs. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division f Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES 89-6103T AND 89-61O4T The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Department of Transportation: 1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. 2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. 3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. 4. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. 5. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Rivers Buford, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mr. William Hare Owner, The Steakery Owner, Sugarloaf Leisure Club Post Office Box 723 Summerland Key, Florida 33042 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bulding 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether the sign of Petitioner, White Advertising International, should be removed by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, for violation of Section 479.07(1) and Section 479.11(2), Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
Findings Of Fact A notice of violation was sent by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, to the Petitioner, White Advertising International, on March 21, 1977, citing an outdoor advertising sign owned by the Petitioner located 1.97 miles west of U.S. #1, State Road 50 E/B with copy "Real Estate Service." The violation noted that the sign violated Section 479.071(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14ER77-09 (now Rule 14-10.04) and Section 479.11(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14ER77-10, 11 (now Rule 14-10.05 and 14-10.06). There is no dispute as to the location or copy or ownership of the subject sign. It is not in a zoned business, commercial or industrial area and is outside an urban area. The sign does not conform to the current setback requirements. The sign has a permit tag dated 1971, the only permit tag on the sign. No application was alleged to have been made for permit or annual fee paid or offered subsequent to 1971 until the application noted in 4, infra. A sign permit application and annual renewal was processed by White Advertising International dated January 21, 1977. The application was an annual renewal for the year of "19 72-1976." The printed application form stated that, "The signs listed above meet all requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Respondent, by its outdoor advertising section administrator, refused to grant the permit on the grounds that the sign which had been erected prior to the enactment of the current setback regulations and probably in the year 1967 had had no application for permit or annual fee paid since 1971 and therefore having become an illegal sign, no permit could be issued. The Petitioner sign company introduced into evidence a letter dated February 28, 1977, from Respondent, Department of Transportation, through its property management administrator which indicated that the State had previously contended the subject sign was built on an unplatted street and had to be removed without compensation but that it was discovered such was not the case and that the State then offered to reimburse Petitioner for relocation costs. Petitioner did not remove the sign and the letter states that the current position of the Respondent State is: That the sign is on the right of way, contrary to Section 339.301, Florida Statutes; Has no current permit; contrary to Section 479.07(1), F.S. Violates Section 479.13, Florida Statutes, as having been constructed, erected, operated, used and maintained without the written permission of the owner or other person in lawful possession or control of the property on which the sign is located; and The sign therefore is an illegal sign and must be removed by Petitioner without compensation. Respondent contends: that the sign is illegal, having failed to be permitted since the year 1971; that it has one pole of the sign pole on the right of way contrary to Section 339.301; that it has no lease contract as required by Section 479.13; that Respondent has no authority to renew delinquent permits; that once a sign becomes illegal a new permit cannot reinstate its nonconforming status. Petitioner, White Advertising International, contends: that it should be granted a permit inasmuch as permits for some signs had been granted by the Respondent although the annual permit fee was not timely made.
Recommendation Remove subject sign if the same has not been removed within thirty (30) days from the date of the Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William D. Rowland, Esquire White Advertising International Post Office Box 626 Titusville, Florida
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Department of Transportation properly issued a Notice of Violation for an illegally erected sign to Lamar of Tallahassee and whether the Petitioner's applications for a sign maintained at the corner of SR366/West Pensacola Street and Ocala Road, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, should be granted as a non-conforming sign or because the Department did not act on either the 2005 or 2007 application for the same sign in a timely manner.
Findings Of Fact Under Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, the Department is the state agency responsible for regulating outdoor advertising signs located within 660 feet of the state highway system, interstate, or federal-aid primary system. Lamar owns and operates outdoor advertising signs in the State of Florida. On March 15, 2005, Lamar applied for a permit from the Department to erect the subject sign. The permit was denied because it was within 1,000 feet of another permitted sign owned by Lamar that is located on SR366/West Pensacola Street. The review process for Lamar’s application for a sign permit involved a two-step process. Initially, Mr. Strickland, the State Outdoor Advertising Administrator, reviewed Lamar’s application. He determined that the sign was within 1,000 feet of another permitted structure. On April 12, 2007, he preliminarily denied Petitioner’s application, prepared the Notice of Denied Application reflecting a denial issuance date of April 12, 2005, and entered his preliminary decision on the Department’s internal database. On the same date, Mr. Strickland forwarded the permit file along with his preliminary decision and letter to his superior, Juanice Hagan. The preliminary decision was made within 30 days of receipt of Lamar’s application. Ms. Hagan did not testify at the hearing. However, at some point, Ms. Hagan approved Mr. Strickland’s preliminary decision and entered the official action of the Department on the Department’s public database. That database reflects the final decision to deny the application was made on April 20, 2005, outside of the 30 days of receipt of Lamar’s application. On the other hand, Ms. Hagan signed the Notice of Denied Application with an issuance date of April 12, 2005. Her signature indicates that her final approval, whenever it may have occurred, related back to April 12, 2005, and was within 30 days of receipt of Lamar’s application. Lamar received the Department’s letter denying its application, along with the return of its application and application fee. The letter contained a clear point of entry advising Lamar of its hearing rights under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. However, Lamar did not request a hearing concerning the denied application as required in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0042(3). Nor did Lamar inform the Department’s clerk in writing that it intended to rely on the deemer provision set forth in Section 120.60, Florida Statutes. Absent a Chapter 120 challenge to the Department’s action, the Department’s denial became final under Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0042(3). After the denial, Lamar performed a Height Above Ground Level (HAGL) test on the proposed sign’s site. The test is used to determine whether the sign face can be seen from a particular viewing location. Lamar determined that the South face could not be seen from SR366/West Pensacola Street due to some large trees located along the West side of Ocala Road and behind the gas station in front of the sign. Pictures of the area surrounding the sign’s proposed location, filed with the 2005 permit application, show a number of trees that are considerably taller than the roof of the adjacent gas station and utility poles. These trees appear to be capable of blocking the view of the sign face from SR366/West Pensacola Street and support the results from Lamar’s HAGL test. Since the sign could not be seen from a federal aid highway, it did not require a permit. Therefore, around August or October 2005, Lamar built the subject sign on the west side of Ocala Road and 222 feet north of SR 366/West Pensacola Street in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. As constructed, the sign sits on a large monopole with two faces, approximately 10 1/2 feet in height and 36 feet wide. The sign’s height above ground level is 28 feet extending upwards to 40 feet. The north face of the sign does not require a permit since it can only be seen from Ocala Road. Likewise, at the time of construction and for some time thereafter, the south face of the sign did not require a permit since it was not visible from a federal aid highway. Following construction of the subject sign, some of the large trees were removed. The removal caused the south face of the sign to be clearly visible from the main traveled way of SR366/West Pensacola Street. On March 21, 2007, the sign was issued a Notice of Violation for an illegally erected sign because it did not have a permit. The Notice of Violation stated: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the advertising sign noted below is in violation of section 479.01, Florida Statutes. An outdoor advertising permit is required but has not been issued for this sign. The Notice cited the wrong statute and, on June 12, 2008, an amended Notice of Violation for an illegally erected sign was issued by the Department. The Amended Notice changed the statutory citation from Section 479.01 to Section 479.07, Florida Statutes. Both the original Notice and Amended Notice stated the correct basis for the violation as: "An outdoor advertising permit is required but has not been issued for this sign." On December 18, 2007, Lamar submitted a second application for an Outdoor Advertising permit for an existing sign. The application was denied on January 8, 2008, due to spacing conflicts with permitted signs BX250 and BX251. The denial cited incorrect tag numbers for the sign causing the spacing conflict. The incorrect tag numbers were brought to the attention of Mr. Strickland. The Department conducted a field inspection of the sign’s area sometime between December 20, 2007 and January 20, 2008. The inspection confirmed that the spacing conflict was caused by signs BZ685 and BZ686. The signs were within 839 feet of the subject sign and owned by Lamar. An Amended Notice of Denied Application was issued by the Department on January 24, 2008. However, the evidence was clear that the Department made the decision to deny the application based on spacing conflicts on January 8, 2008. The fact that paperwork had to be made to conform to and catch up with that decision does not change the date the Department initially acted upon Lamar’s application. Therefore, the 2007 application was acted upon within 30 days. The Department’s employee responsible for issuing violation notices is Lynn Holschuh. She confirmed that if the south sign face was completely blocked from view from the main traveled way of SR366/West Pensacola Street when it was originally constructed, a sign permit would not be required from the Department. Ms. Holschuh further testified that if a change in circumstances occurred resulting in the subject sign becoming visible from the main traveled way of Pensacola Street, the sign might be permitted by the Department as a non-conforming sign, if it met the criteria for such. In this case, the south face of the sign was once legal and did not require a permit because several large trees blocked the sign’s visibility from a federal aid highway. The removal of the trees that blocked the sign caused the sign to become visible from a federal aid highway. In short, the south sign face no longer conformed to the Florida Statutes and Rules governing such signs and now is required to have a sign permit. However, the sign has not been in continuous existence for seven years and has received a Notice of Violation since its construction in 2005. The evidence was clear that the sign does not meet the requirements to qualify as a nonconforming sign and cannot be permitted as such. Therefore, Petitioner’s application for a sign permit should be denied and the sign removed pursuant to the Notice of Violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying Petitioner a permit for the sign located on the west side of Ocala Road, 222 feet North of SR366/West Pensacola Street and enforcing the Notice of Violation for said sign and requiring removal of the south sign face pursuant thereto. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kimberly Clark Menchion, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James C. Myers Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Alexis M. Yarbrough, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Stephanie Kopelousos, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact The facts here involved are not in dispute. In 1966 Petitioner leased the property adjacent to Cypress Street in Tampa and erected a structure thereon on the 1-275 3.6 miles west of 1-4, containing signs facing both east and west. By application dated 20 October 1977 (Exhibits 1 and 2) Petitioner applied for permits for these signs. The applications were disapproved because of spacing. Likewise, on 20 October 1977, Petitioner submitted application for a permit for a sign on the 1-4 2.9 miles east of U.S. 41 with a copy of the lease dated 1967. This sign is located in Tampa and the application was also disapproved because of spacing. Both of these locations are zoned commercial and are within the corporate limits of Tampa, Florida. The structure on which the signs shown on Exhibits 1 and 2 were erected was built in 1968 and the sign involved in Exhibit 3 was built in 1967. The signs for which a permit was requested in Exhibits 1 and 2 is located 325 feet north of a permitted structure owned by Tampa Outdoor Advertising, Inc. on the same side of the street and facing in the same direction. The sign for which a permit was requested in Exhibit 3 is 275 feet west of a permitted sign facing the same direction and on the same side of the street which is owned by Foster and Kleiser. No appeal was taken from these disapprovals, but by applications dated June 19, 1979, Petitioner in Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 reapplied for permits for the same signs that had been disapproved in 1977. These applications were also disapproved because of spacing. The I-4 and the I-275 are part of the Interstate Highway system.
Findings Of Fact By notice of alleged violation dated April 18, 1979, the Department of Transportation (hereafter "Department") charged that the Respondent, Ron Sorg installed a sign on U.S. 301, 7.19 miles south of I-4 in violation of Rules 14- 10.04 and 14-10.05, Florida Administrative Code. The sign in question is an outdoor advertising, sign, located on private property in an area zoned agriculture and has been in its present location for at least ten years. The sign has never been permitted and the road on which it borders is presently classified as a federal-aid primary road. Until 1976, the road on which the sign borders was a federal-aid secondary road. Following the notice of violation, the Respondent applied for a sign permit on October 12, 1979. Since none of the above facts were in dispute, the only issue remaining is the law which is to be applied to this particular sign. Both parties agreed to submit the legal issue to the Hearing Officer for determination.
