Findings Of Fact On September 1, 1981, the Department received in its district office in Chipley, Florida, the Respondent's application for a permit to erect an outdoor advertising sign adjacent to I-10, approximately 1.62 miles east of SR 69S in Jackson County, Florida. This permit application stated that the location requested was in a commercial or industrial area within 800 feet of a business. The Department's outdoor advertising inspector visited the site after having reviewed the Respondent's application and being told by Harry Fuqua that he would find a business called Branch's Garage there. He found a house with a tin farm-type building like a barn in the back. Inside this tin barn were some tools and welding equipment. There was a sign on the door stating the business hours, and another sign on the side of this tin building stating the name Branch's Garage. None of this was visible from I-10, however; all that could be seen from the interstate was the roof of the residence and part of the tin barn; there was no indication to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity was being conducted at this location. The inspector's supervisor and the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator both visited the site prior to approval of the subject permit. The supervisor had also been told that he would find a business known as Branch's Garage there, and he was looking for it. At the site he observed what appeared to be a garage and some work being done. This could not be seen from I-10, and from the interstate he could not see anything that would indicate to traffic that a garage was at this location. The Respondent's representative, Harry Fuqua, admits that no business activity was visible from I-10, and that there was nothing to indicate to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity was being conducted at this location. The site where Branch's Garage is located cannot be reached from I-10 directly. It would have to be approached from one of the side roads after traffic had exited the interstate. Based upon his inspection of the site, coupled with the Respondent's representation that a business called Branch's Garage existed there, the inspector approved the Respondent's application for a sign permit. Thereafter, both the supervisor and the Right-of-Way Administrator also approved the application. The permit was issued on or about September 8, 1981, because of the proximity of the proposed site to the nearby business known as Branch's Garage which had been observed by the inspector, his supervisor, and the Right- of-Way Administrator. Subsequently, after the permit had been issued, the Respondent erected its sign which is the subject of this proceeding. In late 1984 and early 1985 there was no business activity at the subject site and there continues to be nothing there to indicate to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity exists at this location. The Respondent through its agent Harry Fuqua, submitted the application for the subject permit, and designated thereon that the proposed location was in an unzoned commercial area within 800 feet of a business. This application also certified that the sign to be erected met all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit number AF191-10 held by Fuqua & Davis, Inc., be revoked, and the sign which was erected pursuant to this permit be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 11th day of July, 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 11th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine C. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 James J. Richardson, Esquire P. O. Box 12669 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2669 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the subject outdoor advertising signs are illegal because they were erected without state permits from Petitioner. Whether the subject signs should be removed. Whether Petitioner is equitably estopped to assert that the signs are illegal and should be removed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to Interstate 95 on Northwest 6th Court, which is between Northwest 75th Street and Northwest 76th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. For ease of reference, this sign will be referred to as the Interstate 95 sign. The Interstate 95 sign has two facings, each of which is visible from Interstate 95. The Interstate 95 sign is located within 147 feet of the right-of-way of Interstate 95. Respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to Interstate 395 at the corner of Northwest 14th Street and Northwest 1st Court, Miami, Dade County, Florida. For ease of reference, this sign will be referred to as the Interstate 395 sign. The Interstate 395 sign has two facings, each of which is visible from Interstate 395. The Interstate 395 sign is located within 240 feet of the right- of-way of Interstate 395. Eugene A. (Andy) Hancock, Jr., is the President of the corporate Respondent and, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, controlled the activities of Respondent. Mr. Hancock caused the corporate Respondent to lease the respective properties on which the subject signs are located in November 1998. He thereafter caused the corporate Respondent to erect the two double-faced signs at issue in this proceeding. The subject signs were constructed during September and October 1999. Each sign was constructed without a state permit from Petitioner. Each sign is within the permitting jurisdiction of Petitioner. Mr. Hancock testified that his company did not apply for permits from Petitioner because of a conversation he had with Bernard Davis, a former outdoor advertising administrator for Petitioner. Mr. Hancock testified that Mr. Davis represented to him that his company would not need permits from Petitioner if it had permits from the City of Miami. This testimony is rejected. 3/ Respondent has applied for state sign permits for the subject signs. Permits for these signs have not been issued because of their proximity to existing, permitted signs. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that the subject signs are illegal and must be removed pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 6th day of February, 2001.
The Issue Whether the structure described in the Department of Transportation's Notice of Violation No. 10B DB 2000 007 (Notice) is in violation of Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and therefore subject to removal pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is an outdoor advertising company that was formerly known as AK Media. On December 10, 1998, Petitioner (while still known as AK Media) entered into an agreement with NWT Partners, Ltd., the owner of the New World Tower (Building), a "thirty story four (4) sided building" located at 100 North Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, Florida, to lease certain portions of the Building. The lease agreement contained the following provisions, among others: Effective Date. This Lease shall become effective on the later of (x) the date that Tenant provides written notice to Landlord that Tenant has obtained all permits, license and governmental approvals necessary or required to enable Tenant to construct, maintain and operate the Wall Faces and Wall Structures, as hereinafter defined or (y) January 1, 1999 (the "Effective Date"). Tenant shall have ninety (90) days from the date of this Lease to obtain all such permits, licenses and approvals or the Landlord may cancel this Lease. Purpose. The purpose of this lease is for Tenant to construct, maintain and operate painted, printed, illuminated and/or electrical signs on the north and south wall faces of the Building (the "Wall Faces"), and all other uses not inconsistent therewith, including all necessary supporting structures, devices, illumination facilities and connections, service ladders and equipment, and other appurtenances (the "Wall Fixtures"). All construction to the Building, and advertising thereon, including construction drawing and artwork to be furnished by the Tenant shall be subject to Landlord's written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Tenant's Right to Enter and Use. For the duration of this Lease, Tenant shall have the non-exclusive right to enter onto the Property and into the Building and use the Wall Faces for the purposes described in this Lease and any other purposes allowed or required by this Lease and Tenant has the exclusive right to use the Wall Faces Property for advertising. In exercising Tenant's rights hereunder, Tenant may hang or attach the Wall Fixtures to the roof and exterior structure of the Building. Tenant shall maintain the Wall Fixtures at Tenant's cost and expense. Tenant shall pay all utility charges in connection with the operation and maintenance of the Wall Fixtures. Tenant shall be responsible for damage to the Building which is caused by Tenant's operation and maintenance and removal of the Wall Fixtures and shall repair any such damage and restore the Building to the condition it was in immediately prior to such damages at the expiration or termination of this Lease. Term. The term of this Lease is for five (5) years from the "Rent Commencement Date," as hereinafter defined, to the last day of the month during which the fifth anniversary of the Rent Commencement Date occurs (the "Term"). Rent. Tenant shall pay Landlord rent annually, in accordance with the schedule (the "Rent Schedule") set forth on Exhibit "B" hereto, inclusive of all taxes . . . . Contracts. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, Tenant will use its best efforts to obtain contracts (the "Contracts") for advertising on the Building which exceed the amount of the Guaranteed Rent, as set forth on the Rent Schedule. . . . 9. Ownership/Removal. At all times, Tenant is and shall remain the owner of the Wall Fixtures and all signs and permits of any kind in relation thereto, and has the right to remove the Wall Fixtures at any time. . . . Exhibit "B" Rent Schedule Tenant shall pay annual rent to Landlord in an amount equal to the greater of (x) Fifty-five percent (55%) of the gross revenues attributable to advertisements displayed on the North Wall and the South Wall of the Building less any agency fee or commissions not greater than 16 2/3% to bona fide third parties (the "Net Revenues") associated with such advertisements (the "Percentage Rent") or (y) the minimum guaranteed annual rent (the "Guaranteed Rent") hereinafter set forth as follows: . . . The Landlord may terminate the Lease Agreement upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to Tenant if either Wall is vacant for more than one hundred twenty (120) consecutive days during the Term of the Lease and the Tenant has failed to obtain a contract, before the expiration of such notice period, for advertising on the North Wall or South Wall, as the case may be, pursuant to which the projected Percentage Rent under such contract would exceed the Guaranteed Rent. . . . Subsequently, Petitioner (while still operating under the name AK Media) entered into a "bulletin contract" with New York Outdoor, an advertising agency acting on behalf of Supreme International, in which Petitioner agreed, for a fee, to produce and maintain an "outdoor advertising display" for Supreme International on the north wall of the Building. Supreme International sells "Perry Ellis" and "Perry Ellis for Men" brand fashion apparel. In accordance with the "bulletin contract," Petitioner produced an "outdoor advertising display" for Supreme International on the north wall of the Building. The "outdoor advertising display" that Petitioner produced was a large mural more than 100 feet high and more than 60 feet wide. Such a product is referred to in the outdoor advertising industry as a "wallscape." The "wallscape" that Petitioner produced for Supreme International consisted of artwork (a picture of a young woman) and print (the words "Perry Ellis for Men") on a "canvass-type" material that was mounted on a "picture frame" support structure attached to the north wall of the Building. It was located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of a roadway, US Highway 1 (also known, in that location, as North Biscayne Boulevard), which is a part of the federal-aid primary highway system. The artwork and print could be seen without visual aid by motorists of normal visual acuity travelling on US Highway 1 in the vicinity of the Building. At no time has Petitioner applied for, or obtained, a permit from the Department authorizing it to erect and maintain a "sign," as that term is used in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, on the north wall of the Building. Petitioner, however, did seek and obtain a Class II Special Permit from the City of Miami. The permit was granted by the Miami City Commission, through the passage of Miami City Commission Resolution 99- 828, at its October 26, 1999, meeting. The printed agenda distributed in advance of the meeting stated the following concerning the permit for which Petitioner had applied: Consideration of approving Class II Special Permit No. 99-0142 for the property located at approximately 100 North Biscayne Boulevard for a sign of a graphic or artistic value. This will allow a mural containing a commercial message. The resolution passed by the Miami City Commission at the meeting read as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR ISSUANCE OF CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 99-0142, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THERE SHALL BE NO WRITING PERMITTED WITH THE MURAL AND OTHER CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 100 NORTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO SECTION 401 OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED. WHEREAS, the Director for the Department of Planning is recommending approval of Class II Special Permit Application No. 99-0142, with conditions, for the property located at approximately 100 North Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida; and WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, requires City Commission approval of the Class II Special Permit as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of this matter, finds the application for a Class II Special Permit does meet the applicable requirements of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, and deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to approve the recommendation of the Director of the Department of Planning to uphold the issuance of the Class II Special Permit, subject to the condition that there shall be no writing permitted with the mural and other conditions as recommended by the Planning Department; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this section. Section 2. The recommendation of the Director of the Department of Planning to issue Class II Special Permit Application No. 99-0142, subject to the condition that there shall be no writing permitted with the mural and other conditions as recommended by the Planning Department, for the property located at approximately 100 North Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida, is hereby approved, and the City Commission finds that the issuance of Class II Special Permit Application No. 99-0142, with conditions does meet the applicable requirements of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, as amended. Section 3. The Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor. Inasmuch as the words "Perry Ellis for Men" were on the "wallscape" that Petitioner produced for Supreme International, this "wallscape" was not in compliance with the condition imposed by the Miami City Commission, in issuing the Class II Special Permit to Petitioner, that there "be no writing permitted with the mural." On February 22, 2000, Bernard Davis, who, at the time, was the Department's District 6 Roadside Outdoor Advertising Administrator, issued a Notice of Violation (Notice No. 10B DB 2000 007) alleging that the "wallscape" on the north wall of the Building (described above) was "in violation of Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, which requires a permit for all outdoor advertising signs not exempted by Section 479.16, Florida Statutes" and directing that the sign be removed within 30 days. Petitioner thereafter requested an administrative hearing on the matter. Prior to the hearing, the artwork and print on the "wallscape" on the north wall of the Building were changed. As of the date of the final hearing in this case, the "wallscape" on the north wall of the Building contained a picture of a man and part of a woman and the words "Perry Ellis," underneath which was written "www.perryellis.com," Supreme International's website address. The Monday and Tuesday before the final hearing (February 5 and 6, 2001), Mr. Davis' successor, C. Jean Cann, went inside the Building to determine whether Supreme International had an "on-premises presence." On Monday, February 5, 2001, Ms. Cann entered the Building at approximately 1:15 p.m. After obtaining information from the Building's Electronic Directory that "Perry Ellis" occupied room 2128, she took the elevator to the 21st floor. After getting off the elevator, she walked down a hallway, where she saw a paper sign on a door which read "Perry Ellis/Supreme International, Incorporated, 2128." When she knocked on the door, no one answered. She waited 10 to 15 seconds and then knocked again, with the same result. She then, unsuccessfully, attempted to open the door. At around 1:45 p.m., she left the Building. Ms. Cann returned to the Building the following day at approximately 11:40 a.m., at which time she spoke to a security guard, who informed her that "Perry Ellis" "was in 2126." She then again went up to the 21st floor, and, on the same door that she had seen the "Perry Ellis/Supreme International, Incorporated, 2128" sign the day before, she saw a paper sign that read "Perry Ellis/Supreme International, Incorporated, 2126." Her knocks on the door, like those of the previous day, went unanswered, and she was again unable to open the door. At around 12:00 noon, she exited the Building. At no time during either of her two visits was Ms. Cann able to ascertain what, if any, business activity Supreme International was engaging in inside the Building.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that the "wallscape" on the north side of the Building is a "sign" that was erected and is being maintained without the Department-issued permit required by Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and that it therefore is a public and private nuisance that must be removed pursuant to Section 479.105(1), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ STUART M. LERNER 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 23rd day of March, 2001.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Notices of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Woody Drake Advertising, Inc., owns and operates an outdoor advertising sign (the "Sign"), which is located off Interstate 10 (I-10) in Leon County, Florida, and bears tag numbers AG329 and AG850. Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation, 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 (controlled portion) in accordance with Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Jack Wainwright, Jr., is the owner and operator of Petitioner, having purchased the company from his parents approximately 13 years ago. Mr. Wainwright's family has been in the business of outdoor advertising since at least 1976. The Sign consists of one structure with two faces and is located within the controlled portion of I-10, .239 miles east of Still Creek. The Sign is a non-conforming, wooden, V- shaped, 12-pole sign. On June 28, 2009, the Sign sustained damage from high winds associated with a storm. The next day, after being notified of the damage, Mr. Wainwright went to the sign's location and physically inspected it. Grimes Cranes is in the business of, among other things, building and maintaining outdoor signs, such as the Sign at issue. Walter Grimes has owned Grimes Cranes since 2000. Mr. Grimes has worked in the business of erecting and maintaining wooden and metal outdoor advertising signs for approximately 23 years. On average, Mr. Grimes erects 18-to-20 outdoor advertising signs a year. By his estimate, Grimes Cranes has moved, erected, or maintained approximately 75 percent of the outdoor advertising signs in Tallahassee, Florida. Mr. Wainwright contacted Mr. Grimes to obtain an estimate to repair the Sign. They met at the Sign's location on either June 30 or July 1, 2009. Based upon his experience and visual inspection of the uprights, Mr. Grimes concluded that five of the 12 uprights could be reused when repairing the Sign as they were neither broken, splintered, nor otherwise damaged. Mr. Grimes concluded that 35-to-40 percent of the total Sign had been destroyed by the storm. This conclusion was based upon his personal examination of the Sign and his experience in maintaining and erecting outdoor advertising signs. After Mr. Grimes' inspection of the Sign, Mr. Wainwright disassembled the Sign and transported the materials to his father's farm. Once he disassembled the Sign, Mr. Wainwright assessed the damage to it. Based upon his knowledge and experience as owner of Petitioner sign company for the past 13 years, Mr. Wainwright determined that six of the 12 uprights were reusable. Although Mr. Grimes intended to use the five uprights he found to be undamaged in the rebuilding of the Sign, he was not able to do so because Mr. Wainwright had removed the uprights from the area. Mr. Grimes determined it was simpler and more economical to install new uprights on the site rather than haul the reusable ones from their present location on the Wainwright family farm. Ms. Lynn Holschuh has been Respondent's State Outdoor Advertising and Logo Administrator since 1992. While well educated with both a bachelor's and master's degree in English, she has not worked in the business of erecting outdoor signs; has never personally erected an outdoor advertising sign; and has no personal experience building an outdoor advertising sign. The two Notices issued by Respondent that are the basis for this action were signed by Ms. Holschuh as the State Outdoor Advertising and Logo Administrator. The Notices state Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(6)(a) as the basis for the proposed action, alleging that "[m]ore than 60% of the upright supports have been damaged such that replacement is required." Ms. Holshcuh never personally inspected the Sign's uprights and has no personal knowledge as to whether eight or more of the uprights were damaged such that normal repair practices of the industry required their replacement. The Notices were issued after she reviewed photographs taken on July 7, 2009, by an inspector for Respondent. Ms. Holschuh determined, after inspecting the photographs, that ten of the Sign's uprights had been damaged since only two were standing when the inspector took the pictures. This was an assumption on her part based upon the photographs, not her personal inspection of the Sign and uprights following the damage from the storm. Respondent's inspector returned to the site of the Sign on August 17, 2009, took additional photographs, and noted that a new 10-pole sign had been erected on the site. The Sign had been permitted as a 12-pole sign, but had been rebuilt as a 10-pole sign with 10 brand new uprights. Respondent interprets Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(6)(a) as requiring that the sign owner use the poles that are not damaged in rebuilding the sign. Respondent does not interpret this rule provision to allow the erection of a completely new sign. Ms. Holschuh admitted that Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(6)(a) does not explicitly require the actual re-use of the non-damaged upright supports when a non-conforming sign is re-erected. Respondent concedes that as long as 60 percent of the uprights had not been damaged to the extent that replacement of the upright supports was required due to the damage, the sign could be disassembled and re-erected. Ms. Holschuh agreed that the Sign could have been disassembled and re-erected if no more than seven of the uprights had sustained damage. Damage to seven of the uprights would constitute 58.33 percent replacement while damage to eight of the uprights would constitute 66.67 percent replacement.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the Notices of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly Clark Menchion, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Claude Ridley Walker, Esquire Guilday, Tucker, Schwartz & Simpson, P.A. 1983 Centre Pointe Boulevard, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-7823 Deanna Hurt, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Stephanie C. Kopelousos, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 57 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
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 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent's sign, as identified in Notice of Violation Number 1- 17-14, is permittable.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters concerned herein, Respondent, Berlin Sign Company, was engaged in the outdoor advertising business in Florida, and Petitioner, Department of Transportation, was the state agency charged with the responsibility for regulating outdoor advertising in this state. On or about March 30, 1989, Joseph V. Hanrahan, an outdoor advertising inspector for the Department of Transportation, observed a sign owned by the Respondent and erected under permit issued by Sarasota County, located approximately 60 feet south of River Road and 250 feet west of U.S. Highway 41, in Sarasota County, Florida. The sign is clearly visible from U.S. Highway 41, a federal aid primary highway and is located approximately 200 feet from a billboard facing in the same direction owned by National Advertising Company. Though a swampy area between the signs prevents an accurate measurement of the distance, Mr. Hanrahan is quite certain the distance is well within the 1,000 foot separation distance required by the Rules of the Department, and it is so found. River Road intersects with U.S. Highway 41, and though the sign in issue is primarily directed at traffic on River Road approaching U.S. Highway 41 from the east, due to the curve of U.S. Highway 41, the sign is readily visible from U.S. Highway 41 which almost parallels River Road at that point. The sign in issue advertises a real estate development located quite a distance to the north and west of the sign location. River Road is a primary feeder road from Interstate Highway 75 on the East to the area. Much of the traffic exiting the Interstate for this area utilizes River Road, and it is at this traffic the sign is aimed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued requiring Respondent, Berlin Sign Company, to remove the sign in question to a location consistent with the state requirements for sign adjacent to federal aid primary highways. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 28th day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Rivers Buford, Jr., Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 J. Michael Berlin Berlin Sign Company 264 Bahama Street Venice, Florida 34285 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire Dept. of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to an order, requiring the removal of two signs involved herein which are owned by Respondent, pursuant to the Highway Beautification Act or Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and if so, whether or not the Respondent is entitled to compensation from Petitioner for the value of such signs.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony adduced at the hearing, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that the Respondent, National Advertising Company, is the owner of certain outdoor advertising signs located in the City of Jacksonville, Florida. The parties also stipulated that Interstate 95 is part of the interstate highway system; that the two signs in question can be seen from Interstate 95 and the signs are located within 660 feet of the road's right-of-way. The parties also stipulated that only the poles which are used to erect the signs were in place prior to midnight on December 8, 1971. It appears that the poles were erected sometime during 1968, and that faces were added to the poles during the spring of 1972. The signs are located at .43 miles North of Pecan Park Road and .73 miles North of Pecan Park Road, respectively, adjacent to Interstate percent Highway 95. The Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, takes the position that since the faces were not on the signs prior to midnight on December 8, 1981, pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, it is entitled to the entry of an order requiring removal of the signs by Respondent without any compensation for the signs whatsoever. Respondent, through counsel, moved that the hearing be dismissed on the ground that the Division of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction to hear such matters, in that the signs may be removed only by proceeding under Florida's eminent domain law. 2/ It is undisputed that the signs involved are located within prohibited distances as provided in Chapter; 479.11, Florida Statutes. They are, therefore, a nonconforming structure as provided for within the terms of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. In view of the stipulated facts, the structures involved herein do not constitute signs within the meaning of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, since prior to midnight on December 8, 1971, all that existed of those structures were poles. See A. W. Lee, Jr. v. Reubin O'D. Askew, Case No.2-1798 (2nd DCA, 1979). Within the next year, however, Respondent erected advertising displays which had informative contents that were visible from the main traveled way. At that point, the structures herein became nonconforming outdoor advertising signs and were thereafter required to comply with pertinent State law in effect on that date.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, upon removal of the signs, remit to the Respondent compensation in the amount of the actual replacement value of the materials used in the signs. It is further recommended that compensation be made pursuant to the State's eminent domain procedures. 3/ RECOMMENDED this, 25th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 25th day of September, 1981.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of Billboard Consultants for permits to erect outdoor advertising signs on Prudential Drive (U.S. 1), 90 feet south of Flagler Avenue, facing south, in Jacksonville (Duval County), Florida, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 22nd day of April, 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 22nd day of April, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's application to erect an outdoor advertising sign along the east side of U.S. 41, four miles north of CR-54 (Exhibit 1) was disapproved by Respondent because it was within 1,000 feet of a sign on the same side of U.S. 41 and facing in the same direction. U.S. 41 is a federal aid primary highway. The site applied for in Exhibit 1 is 963 feet south of an existing sign on the east side of U.S. 41 owned by Cotee Outdoor Advertising for which permits AE 482-35 and AR 483-35 have been issued. Petitioner's primary objection to the denial is the cost involved in relocating the existing sign some 35 feet to the north which would be necessary to have at least 1000 feet between the proposed site and an existing sign.
