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 sign is in violation of 479.07 and 479.01 Florida Statutes for the reason that it has no permit tag attached thereto and has been enlarged.
Findings Of Fact A violation notice was issued to A. W. Lee, Respondent, on June 29, 1977, alleging that a sign owned by Respondent located at 12.85 miles north U.S. 441-Ellisville, Florida Highway I-75 with copy "Jiffy Junction" was in violation of 479.07 and 479.01 Florida Statutes and Rule 14-10.05(m) Florida Administrative Code. A request for administrative hearing was made by the Respondent and thereafter the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to hold an administrative hearing. A sign in the same location as subject sign was tagged in 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 for an 8 x 12 sign. The permit was issued to Harvey Campbell. The sign was approximately 15 feet back from the right of way of I-75. A fee of $2.00 was paid for the permit. Prior to June of 1977 ownership was transferred from Harvey Campbell to the Respondent, A. W. Lee. The Respondent filed an application for a permit on June 20, 1977, for a sign 14 X 12 indicating a fee of $2.00 A sign at the location was existing, had no permit and measured 8 x 20. The sign as it stands at date of hearing is a sign 8 x 20, it advertises "Burger King this exit, turn right 300 feet right." It has no permit. The Hearing Officer further finds a sign that had been repermitted through 1977 was a sign 8 x 10 and the permit was issued to Harvey Campbell. The sign that stands there in the approximate location is a sign 8 x 20 and has additional poles to hold the panels. It has no permit. The sign is located on property owned by A. L. Lee, the Respondent, and the smaller original sign was transferred by Mr. Campbell to Respondent prior to April, 1976.
Recommendation Remove the subject sign. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James J. Richardson, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1857 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Outdoor Advertising Sign owned by the Petitioner qualifies for permitting as a non-conforming sign.
Findings Of Fact On August 5, 1996, the Department issued a notice of Violation of an illegally erected sign to Clarence E. Adams. The sign in question was located 9.240 miles south of the line between Georgia and Florida on real property that is now and always has been zoned agricultural. The property upon which the sign is located was purchased by Clarence Adams and his brother, Dennis C. Adams, in 1976. The sign was on the property when they purchased the property; and, although they did not own the sign, they have derived continually revenue from the rental of the property upon which the sign is located since 1976. The sign has been maintained in it present form since 1976 by its owner(s). The subject sign had never been cited previously by the Department for violation of the outdoor advertising statutes. The subject sign is located at mile post 9.240. The sign is not in the Department’s right of way. The sign is not a danger to the traveling public. The sign is located adjacent to and can be seen from the main traveled way of Interstate 75 which is a federal highway that is open to the public. The current owner, Ray Sheffield, testified and did not claim to have a valid permit. Clarence Adams admitted that he had never applied for such a permit. The Department proved by testimony and evidence that the subject sign does not have a valid outdoor advertising permit, and there is no record by the Department that it ever had a valid permit. Clarence Adams proved that the sign was at its current location in 1976 when Adams and his brother purchased the property. Adams proved that a sign was in that location as early as 1975. The Department and the Federal Highway Administration entered into an agreement in 1972 that prohibited the erection of outdoor advertising signs along federal highways in areas zoned agricultural. The Petitioner did not prove that the sign was erected prior to the agreement between the Department and the Federal Highway Administration in 1972.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order finding: That the outdoor advertising sign, which is the subject of the notice of violation and which is located at mile post 9.240, does not have a permit, is in violation of the law, and is not qualified to be grand-fathered in and permitted; and That the owners of the real property upon which the subject sign is located and putative owner of the sign, Ray Sheffield, be directed to remove the sign within 30 days; and That the owners of the real property be advised that, if the subject sign is not removed, the Department will seek an order of a court of competent jurisdiction directing the removal of the sign and assessing costs for obtaining the court’s order and the costs of removing the sign. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 22nd day of May, 1997 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Scaff, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer O Jasper, Florida 32052 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether respondent's initial proposal to deny petitioner's application for a permit to construct an outdoor advertising sign had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it occurred or was otherwise substantially justified; or, if not, whether special circumstances would make an award of costs and fees unjust?
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1988, petitioner proposed to erect a sign facing east, within 15 feet of an existing outdoor advertising sign, on the north side of State Road 200, approximately .6 miles west of the intersection of State Road 200 and I-75. He planned to place a single face at such an angle to the existing, single-faced sign that a V configuration would result. Another outdoor advertising company held a permit for the existing sign, which faced west. It stood on property belonging to a land owner who did not own the property to the east on which Ray proposed to raise its sign. On November 10, 1988, the Department of Transportation issued a notice of intent to deny petitioner's application for a permit to construct the outdoor advertising sign. Petitioner reasonably incurred attorneys' fees of $787.50 and costs of $28.00 before Department of Transportation decided, well after the evidentiary hearing held April 5, 1989, to issue the permit, after all. As far as the record reveals, the Department has faced only one other situation in which an applicant for a permit to construct a sign, within 15 feet of an existing sign, proposed to build on property not owned by the land owner who had leased to the company which had built the existing sign, viz., Ad-Con Outdoor Advertising v. Department of Transportation, No. 89- 0087T. In that case, too, the Department issued a permit for the second sign. In an internal memorandum dated February 17, 1989, respondent's Rivers Buford wrote Dallas Gray, while the Ad-Con application was pending, the following: Inasmuch as the proposed sign would be within fifteen feet of another sign it would, by virtue of the provisions of Rule Chapter 14-10.1006(1)(b)3, be considered a part of a V-type sign and thus its two faces would be exempt from the minimum spacing requirements of Section 479.07, F.S. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. The memorandum antedated the final hearing in Case No. 88-6107 by more than six weeks. Presumably, the intended rule reference was to Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code. At the hearing in the present case, the Department of Transportation produced two witnesses to explain why the Department initially turned down petitioner's application. In their view, the Department of Transportation should never have granted petitioner's application, in order to protect rights vested in the other company, particularly a purported, preemptive right the other company had, by virtue of the location of its existing sign, to build another sign where Ray proposed to build, even though the other company did not own and had not leased the site Ray applied to build on. They asserted not only that the Department was substantially justified in turning down petitioner's application when it was originally considered, but also that any other similar application should be turned down. In their opinion, the Department erred in issuing permits in both cases in which the question has arisen. They attributed the eventual issuance of permits to petitioner and in the Ad-Con case to misinformed and misguided departmental employees. As authority for this view, Mr. Kissinger, respondent's Motorist Information Services Coordinator, cited Sections 479.07(9)(a) and 479.01(14), Florida Statutes (1989) and Rule 14-10.006(b)(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Atlantic Outdoor Advertising, Inc., has erected a sign adjacent to Southside Boulevard, approximately 346 feet from Atlantic Boulevard, in the City of Jacksonville, Florida. Atlantic Boulevard is a federal-aid primary highway, while Southside Boulevard is not. The place where the Respondent erected the subject sign is within 660 feet from Atlantic Boulevard, and this sign is visible from the main-traveled way of Atlantic Boulevard. The subject sign is approximately 300 feet from another sign, owned by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company, which was permitted by the Department in 1980 and 1981. The Naegele permits are still valid, and they authorize a sign within 660 feet of Atlantic Boulevard on the same side of the road as the Respondent's subject sign. When the Respondent erected its sign it had obtained a building permit from the City of Jacksonville, and it holds a lease to the site where the sign is located, but the Respondent does not have a state permit for its sign and no state sign permit has been applied for by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the outdoor advertising sign of the Respondent, Atlantic Outdoor Advertising, Inc., located adjacent to Southside Boulevard, approximately 346 feet from Atlantic Boulevard, in the City of Jacksonville, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 18th day of June, 1986 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 18th day of June, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-3021T Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but irrelevant. Accepted, but irrelevant. Accepted, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Paul M. Glenn, Esquire 2900 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the sign of Respondent violates Section 479.07 and Section 479.02, Florida Statutes by violation of the permit and spacing requirements of the Outdoor Advertising Act.
Findings Of Fact An application was made for a permit for the subject sign and the application was denied on the basis that the sign was within the 500 foot spacing requirement, the sign being erected approximately in the middle of the distance between two outdoor advertising sign which are approximately 500 feet apart. The sign advertises Oaks Trading Post. The sign has been erected for many years and has carried messages such as "Elect Askew for Governor" and "Vote Democratic" or other political advertisements. The sign now advertises a commercial establishment and has since, at least, December of 1976. This sign does not bear a permit although the Respondent admitted that it is a commercial sign. 3.. The Respondent has paid the required license fees for the subject sign for more than the last 20 years to the City of Rockledge, Florida.
Recommendation Remove the subject sign. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of February, 1978, 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 Mr. Anthony Ninos 112 Riverside Drive Cocoa, Florida 32922
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.
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.
Findings Of Fact The outdoor advertising sign which is the subject of these proceedings is located on U.S. 1 (State Road 5) approximately 1,029 feet north of Summerland Road in North Key Largo. The outdoor advertising sign is owned and maintained by the Respondent and is visible from the main traveled way of the adjacent roadway. The Respondent purchased the sign from the Daly Outdoor Advertising Company in 1984. The sign consist percents of a ten feet by forty feet plywood sign face supported ]by five four inch by six inch poles which serve as uprights. In addition, the sign has 5 stringers (wooden planks placed in a cross-type fashion on the upright poles to hold the sign face in place). The parties stipulated that the sign, in place prior to 1971, was a "nonconforming sign" as defined by Rule 14- 10.07, Florida Administrative Code. The sign permit number is AK-332-10. In November of 1985, Hurricane Kate traveled through the Keys and damaged the sign. On December 4, 1985, Mr. William Kenney, District VI Outdoor Advertising Administrator, passed the site of the sign and noticed that the face of the structure was blown over In the water. Because the sign was surrounded by water and mud, Mr. Kenney observed the sign from approximately 30 feet away. Although the sign was blown over into the water, the face was intact. The poles which were used to hold the sign face snapped. On December 10, 1985, the Respondent purchased 5 used telephone poles at a cost of $50.00 each and repaired the damaged sign. The poles were used as uprights to support the sign face. On January 8, 1986, Mr. Kenney walked over to the sign and inspected it. In Mr. Kenney's opinion, the replaced upright poles appeared to be longer than the old ones, the stringers appeared to be made out of new wood and the plywood used on the face of the structure appeared to be new. The overall size of the repaired structure appeared to be the same size that it was before being damaged by the hurricane. The sign is located at exactly the same location as it was prior to being blown down. It is standard practice in the outdoor advertising industry for a company to exchange, refinish and replace faces of outdoor advertising signs on a routine basis. By letter dated January 14, 1986, the Petitioner advised Respondent that its sign permit number AK-332-10 was no longer valid and by notice to show cause dated February 14, 1986, the Petitioner advised Respondent that the repaired sign had no valid permit and was illegal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be issued declaring that sign permit AK-332-10 remains valid and dismissing the notice of violation and notice to show cause. 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 23rd day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0575T & 86-0966T (consolidated) The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to these cases. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1 and 5. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Matters not contained therein are rejected as argument and/or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rulings of Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 8. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6 and 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. 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, Suite 502 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be determined are: a) whether Petitioner’s sign for Crestview Paint and Body is located within Department of Transportation’s (“Department” or “Respondent”) right-of-way; and b) whether the sign is entitled to an on-premises exemption from permitting.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation is the state agency responsible for regulating outdoor advertising along interstates and federal-aid primary roads in accordance with chapter 479, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-10, and a 1972 Federal- State Agreement. Petitioner, Crestview Paint and Body, owns and operates an auto body repair shop on 956 West James Lee Boulevard in Crestview, Florida, and has maintained that location since 1988. In 2006, Petitioner bought property at 701 South Ferdon Boulevard in Crestview, Florida, including a pre-existing sign for Jet Muffler and a building with four units. Petitioner opened the business location in 2007, and replaced the Jet Muffler sign with one for Crestview Paint and Body. One of the issues of dispute in this matter is whether Petitioner conducted business at the Ferdon Boulevard location. Mr. Lowe, owner of Crestview Paint and Body, testified that the Ferdon Boulevard location was operated as a concierge service for Crestview Paint and Body. Mr. Lowe maintains a business occupational license for the Ferdon location and the license was effective and valid when Respondent issued the Notice on April 17, 2017. While a tax collector print-out reflected the business was closed, the credible evidence supports that the concierge location maintained a valid business occupation license. Mr. Lowe had business cards made with a photograph of the Ferdon Boulevard location showing Hertz and Crestview Paint and Body, and the words “Collision Concierge and Rental Car Center, 701 S. Ferdon Blvd, Crestview, Florida.” Another card read “2 Locations to Serve You Better” with the addresses for Ferdon Boulevard and James Lee Boulevard. The Crestview Paint and Body sign at issue here was located at the Ferdon Boulevard location. It was erected at the same spot as the predecessor sign that advertised the Jet Muffler business and installed under permit No. 2007-0430. Petitioner complied with all Crestview local ordinances required to erect the sign. As the sign was replacing an established sign, it is not clear if the City of Crestview required a survey of the location prior to installation. The sign has been owned and operated by Crestview Paint and Body in its current location for the past 10 years. Wayne Thompson, an employee of Crestview Paint and Body, testified that he works at the Ferdon location periodically. He meets customers at the location as needed, an average of two times per month. An employee was initially assigned to work full-time at the concierge location, but the position was reduced to part-time, and eventually eliminated. Senida Oglesby, a former customer of Crestview Paint and Body, testified that she received concierge service at the Ferdon Boulevard location. She took her vehicle to the location and it was transferred to the main location for completion of service. However, Ms. Oglesby stated she was last at the business approximately 3 to 4 years ago. Mr. Lowe testified that he completed an inspection of a vehicle at the concierge location on an undetermined date. Respondent asserts that its investigator visited the Ferdon Boulevard location on February 7, 2017; April 17, 2017; and May 15, 2017, and observed no business activity and concluded there was no business being conducted on behalf of Crestview Paint and Body at the location. The credible evidence demonstrates that there was no legitimate business activity being conducted on behalf of Crestview Paint and Body at the Ferdon Boulevard location. Ferdon Boulevard is a federal-aid primary highway subject to Department permitting in accordance with chapter 479. Crestview Paint and Body has never requested or received a permit for the display of outdoor advertising at the Ferdon Boulevard location. In 2015, Crestview Paint and Body leased Bay 101 of the Ferdon Boulevard location to a vape and smoke shop. The header signs positioned above the units numbered 101, 103, and 104 had signs for the vape and smoke shop. There was no header sign above unit 102. Mr. Collins placed a Notice sticker on the Crestview Paint and Body sign located at Ferdon Boulevard. On April 18, 2017, a written copy of the Notice was sent to Crestview Paint and Body at the James Lee Boulevard location. In preparing for the hearing, Billy Benson, a Department outdoor advertising field administrator, discovered that the sign appeared to be partially on the property owned by Crestview Paint and Body and partially on the Department’s right-of-way. The Department’s right-of-way is defined in section 334.03(21), Florida Statutes, as land in which the Department owns the fee or has an easement devoted to or required for use as a transportation facility. At the sign’s location, the right-of-way extended 50 feet to the right and 47 feet to the left of the centerline of Ferdon Boulevard. Mr. Collins again visited the Ferdon Boulevard location along with Sam Rudd. Mr. Collins and Mr. Rudd located survey markers to the north and south of the sign establishing the Department’s right-of-way line extending 10 feet beyond the edge of the sidewalk. The front edge of the sign began at two feet beyond the edge of the sidewalk and the back edge of the sign was 12 feet beyond the sidewalk. A survey conducted by a Department survey crew in November 2017, confirmed that 7.8 feet of the sign was located within the Department’s right-of-way and 2.6 feet of the sign was on Petitioner’s property. On September 20, 2017, the Department issued an Amended Notice of Violation–Illegally Erected Sign, noting that in addition to being an unpermitted sign in violation of section 479.105, the sign was located within the Department’s right-of- way in violation of sections 479.11(8) and 337.407. On September 20, 2017, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for Continuance, based on the recently discovered information and the sudden death of Mr. Lowe’s father. The motion provided: This matter involves an unpermitted sign in Okaloosa County. The department recently surveyed the sign’s location and determined the sign is within the Department’s right of way. Consequently, the department is issuing an amended notice of violation citing section 337.407 and 479.107, Florida Statutes, in addition to the initial reason for the violation based on section 479.105, Florida Statutes. The Department believes it is in the interest of judicial economy to have all charges determined in a single hearing. The Petitioner has indicated additional time will be needed to respond to the notice of violation as amended. Petitioner contends that it objected to the Department’s amendment of the Notice initially filed in this matter. While the Department did not properly file a Motion to Amend its Notice, there was no showing that Respondent was prejudiced by the Department's failure to comply with all requirements of the statute. Assuming arguendo there was prejudice, any prejudice alleged by Petitioner was cured. Petitioner agreed to the continuance, which stated the amendment of the Notice as a basis for the continuance. Further, Petitioner had more than 60 days to conduct discovery regarding the new allegations and had sufficient time to prepare for the hearing.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation enter a final order finding that Petitioner’s sign was erected and maintained on the Department’s right-of-way. Further, the final order should find that Petitioner is not entitled to an exemption for an on-premises sign. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 1st day of February, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Dixie Dan Powell, Esquire Powell Injury Law, P.A. 602 South Main Street Crestview, Florida 32536 (eServed) Susan Schwartz, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 (eServed) Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Michael J. Dew, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Erik Fenniman, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
