The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Transportation, is entitled to remove a certain sign allegedly owned by the Respondent and allegedly located on State Read 814, 800 feet east of Powerline Road in Pompano Reach, Florida. The stated grounds for this removal are for the failure to have a permit under the terms and conditions of Subsection 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, and the alleged improper spacing of this sign, vis-a-vis, other signs in the vicinity, in violation of Section 479.025, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Transportation, is entitled to remove a certain sign allegedly owned by the Respondent and allegedly located on State Road 84, 600 feet east of U.S. 441 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The stated grounds for this removal are for the failure to have a permit under the terms and conditions of Subsection 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, and the alleged improper spacing of this sign, vis-a-vis, other signs in the vicinity, in violation of Section 479.025, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Transportation's allegations against the Respondent, William E. Beal, d/b/a Beal Sign Service, which allegations charged the Respondent Beal with violations of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Transportation, is an agency of State Government charged with the function of carrying out the conditions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and such rules as have been promulgated to effect that charge. The Respondent, William E. Beal, d/b/a Beal Sign Service, is a business enterprise licensed under Section 479.04, Florida Statutes, to do business as an outdoor advertiser in the State of Florida. The Petitioner, through its form statement letter of violation and attached bill of particulars has accused the Respondent of violations pertaining to two signs. The stated violations alleged against each sign are common, in that the Respondent is accused in both instances of not having a permit as required by Subsection 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.04(1), Florida Administrative Cede, and is additionally charged in the case of both signs with maintaining improper spacing in violation of Section 479.025, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code. The facts of the case reveal that the first sign in contention is located on State Road 814, which is also known as Atlantic Boulevard, in Broward County, Florida. The copy of that sign contains the language, World Famous Restaurant, Kapok Tree Inn." This sign is depicted in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence, which is a photograph of the sign. The second sign in contention is located on State Road 84 and is depicted in the photograph which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence, and it carries the copy, "Villas of Arista Park." This particular sign is located in Broward County, Florida. Both of the signs in question are owned by the Respondent, Beal, and have been constructed by his business concern. The sign located on State Road 814 faces east and is 330 feet away from the nearest sign, which faces east; the latter sign has a permit and is owned by the Respondent. The disputed sign is part of a double-faced construction with the second side facing west. The sign on State Road 84 also faces east and is 292 feet away from the next sign, which faces east. The next nearest east-facing sign is permitted and is owned by the Respondent. Again, the disputed sign on State Road 84 is part of a double-faced apparatus whose second face is located in a westerly direction. The west faces of the signs have the proper State permits; however, the east faces, which are in dispute in this proceeding, do not have the proper State permits required by Subsection 479.07(1), Florida Statutes. That provision reads: "479.07 Individual device permits; fees; tags.-- Except as in this chapter otherwise provided, no person shall construct, erect, operate, use, maintain, or cause or permit to be constructed, erected, operated, used or maintained any outdoor advertising structure, outdoor advertising sign or outdoor advertisement, outside any incorporated city or town, without first obtaining a permit therefor from the department, and paying the annual fee therefor, as herein provided. Any person who shall construct, erect, operate, use, or maintain, or cause or permit to be constructed, erected, operated, used, or maintained, any outdoor advertising structure, outdoor advertising sign, or outdoor advertisement along any federal aid primary highway or interstate highway within any incorporated city or town shall apply for a permit on a form provided by the department. A permanent permit tag of the kind hereinafter provided shall be issued by the department without charge and shall be affixed to the sign in the manner provided in subsection (4). The department shall not issue such a permit to any person in the business of outdoor advertising who has not obtained the license provided for in s.479.04." The sign at State Road 814 which is in dispute is neither a federal- aid primary highway nor interstate highway. It is a part of the state road system in the State of Florida. Nonetheless, it is outside any incorporated city or town and would require a permit. The sign at State Road 84, which has been referred to through the statement of violation, is in an unincorporated area of Broward County and would require a permit. In addition, it is a sign located on a federal-aid primary highway. The conclusion reached on the necessity of the Respondent to have the subject signs permitted is reached through an examination of the history of the two signs in question and the west-faced construction at the location of the two signs which are in controversy. In 1971 the Respondent applied to the Broward County Building and Zoning Department to he granted a permit to construct a single-faced, non- illuminated sign at the location, State Road 814. That request was granted and a single sign was constructed, which is the west-faced sign at the location. That sign remains today. A copy of the application for that sign permit may he found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Some time in January, 1978, and as indicated by the document for application, January 6, 1978, the Respondent filed a request with the Petitioner for a permit for the east face that is disputed in the course of this hearing pertaining to the location on State Road 814, with the copy, Kapok Tree Inn. No prior permit had been issued for the construction of that east face through the offices of the Petitioner, nor to the knowledge of the Petitioner's employees had any permit been granted by Broward County for such a sign. A couple of days after the application was made for the permit for the east face of the sign on State Road 814, the sign structure itself was built. That structure was constructed at a time when the permit request had not been approved. Subsequent to the construction, an employee of the petitioner informed the Respondent that the permit request had not been approved and in August, 1978, the fees for such a permit were returned to the Respondent. The explanation for not approving the request for permit was due to the failure to comply with the Rule 14- 10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to spacing between signs. (In addition, it was established in the hearing that the Petitioner was reluctant to approve the applications for either the State Road 814 or the State Road 84 signs in view of a certain action on the part of Broward County against the Respondent's east-facing signs on State Road 814 and State Road 84 for alleged non-compliance with the Broward County Ordinance, Section 39-946 and Chapter 42-4203.I, South Florida Building Code. The action with Broward County is still pending.) The permit application for the east-faced sign on State Road 84, which is the subject of this controversy, was made as notarized January 5, 1978. The history of the Respondent's signs located at this particular position is traced through an examination of the Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, which is a copy of the permit application filed with the Broward County Building and Zoning Department in 1974, requesting the right to construct and be permitted for a double-faced sign. That permit was granted and the west face was constructed and utilized by the Respondent and a proper permit still remains in effect. It is unclear from the record at what point the easternmost face of the double-faced sign was constructed, but it is clear that the east face was existent with the aforementioned copy in place when an employee of the Petitioner inspected the sign as a prerequisite to issuing the permit and on an inspection discovered that the sign was only 292 feet away from the next sign which faced east located on the road. The import of the Respondent's testimony did, however, seem to suggest that the west face of the double-faced sign was constructed at a time before the east face. Moreover, the Respondent by asking for the permit appeared to be of the opinion that the permit for the west face was insufficient in itself to meet permitting requirements for the east face. The east face of the sign at State Road 84 aid not have a state permit when it was inspected by the Petitioner's employee and to the knowledge of the Petitioner never had been permitted. Petitioner notified the Respondent that the sign at State Road 84, which is under consideration in this case, purportedly violated the provision in Section 479.025, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to spacing. This notification was through the Notice of Violation of February 15, 1978, and was tantamount to informing the Respondent that the permit application had been rejected. Even though a double-faced sign application was made with Broward County in 1974 for the sign apparatus to be located in the position on State Road 84, the requested utilization of the east face did not come about until January, 1978, and the Broward County permission to construct a double-faced sign did not grant the Respondent license which would allay the necessity of gaining a permit from the Petitioner to utilize the east face of that sign. Having established that no permit existed for the two signs in question at the time the Notice of Violation was filed on February 15, 1978, and having established the need for such a permit, there remains to be determined the question of whether or not the signs violated requirements for spacing purportedly found in Section 479.025, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14- 10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Cede. (Section 479.025, Florida Statutes, does not apply because it was repealed by Chapter 77-104, Laws of Florida, effective August 2, 1977.) Rule 14-10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code, establishes the requirement that "no two structures shall be spaced less than five hundred (500) feet apart on the same side of the highway facing the same direction." This requirement only applies to federal-aid primary highway; therefore, it would not have application to State Road 814, which is not a federal-aid primary highway. Consequently, the spacing requirements could not stand as a basis for denying the permit application as it pertains to the sign on State Road 814. Rule 14-.0.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code, would have application to State Road 84, which is a federal-aid primary highway. In view of the fact that the next east-facing sign on State Road 84, which is most adjacent to the sign on State Road 84 in dispute, is 292 feet from the structure on State Road 84, the disputed sign violates Rule 14-10.06(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code, as being less than five hundred (500) feet from the next adjacent sign on the same side of the highway and facing the same direction, and a permit should not be issued because of this violation of the spacing requirement. It should be mentioned that the Respondent has claimed the theory of estoppel in the course of the hearing on the question of the right to obtain permits for the signs and to avoid their removal. The theory of that claim of estoppel is that the Petitioner has failed to comply with Rule 14-10.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, on the requirements for permit approval and is estopped from denying the permit application. That provision states: "14-10.04 Permits. Permit Approval Upon receipt of Form 178-501 from an outdoor advertiser, the District will record the date received in the lower right hand corner of the form. Within fifteen days of the receipt the application must be approved and forwarded to the Central Office or returned to the applicant. The sign site must be inspected by an outdoor advertising inspector, to assure that the sign(s) will not be in violation of the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, Title 23, Section 131, U.S. Code and local governmental regulations. If all these requirements are met and the measurements are correct, the inspector stamps the application 'Approved', signs it and dates his signature. Where two applications from different advertisers conflict with each other or are competing for the same site the first application received by the district office will be the first considered for approval. If the first one received is approved the second application will be disapproved and returned to the advertiser. Although the facts show that the Petitioner did not approve and forward the permit application to the Central Office or return it to the applicant within fifteen days as required, the Respondent went forward with his construction and/or utilization of the signs in question without receiving a permit which allowed for such construction and/or utilization. In the case of the sign at State Road 814, the sign was constructed before the expiration of the fifteen day period within which time the Petitioner could respond to the application. Furthermore, Rule 14-10.04(2), Florida Administrative Code, clearly indicates that no permit exists until the permit tag is issued, and the permit tag is not issued unless the District Office approves the permit application request. In both instances, the permit application request was not approved and a permit tag was not issued; and there being no entitlement to a default permit upon the expiration of a fixed period of time, and the Respondent having acted without permission to construct and/or utilize the signs and there being no facts proven which established the necessary reliance condition as a prerequisite to a claim of estoppel, estoppel does not pertain. That provision of Rule 14-10.04(2), Florida Administrative Code, states: "14-10.04 Permits. Permits Issued Upon Approval: Upon receipt of the approved application with payment of the permit fee, the Outdoor Advertising Section, Central Office, issues the permit tag. The tag will be issued within 30 days of receipt in the District Office. The advertiser shall attach the permit tag to the face of the advertising structure, advertising sign or advertisement on the end nearest the highway in a manner that shall cause it to be plainly visible but not readily accessible by the general public." At best, the Respondent could have inquired of the Petitioner at a time thirty (30) days from the receipt of the two applications to determine why the applications had not been approved or returned to the Respondent. And in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, moved in the appropriate forum to mandate compliance with Rule 14-10.04, Florida Administrative Code. Instead, the Respondent moved at his own jeopardy to construct and/or utilize the two subject signs, which are indicated in the Notice of Violation, and by doing so ran the risk that he would not gain the necessary permits and would stand to have the signs removed under the provision of Section 479.17, Florida Statutes. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner is not estopped from requesting the removal of those signs.
Recommendation It is recommended that the signs located at State Road 814 and State Road 84 that are the subject matter of this dispute be removed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building MAILING ADDRESS: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nancy Severs, Esquire Miller, Squire & Braverman 500 Northeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent?s Outdoor Advertising Permits should be revoked pursuant to section 479.08, Florida Statutes, because the associated sign has not remained substantially the same, has been disassembled and re-erected, or has been destroyed, as set forth in the Amended Notice of Intent to Revoke.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation regulates outdoor advertising signs located in proximity to the State Highway System, the Interstate, and portions of the Federal-aid Primary System. Green?s Wrecker Service, begun in 1947, was one of the first wrecker services in Alachua County. Mr. Allen Green was the owner and operator. There was no precise testimony as to when Mr. Green first erected the advertising sign at issue here, but Mr. Green?s daughter, Pamela, vaguely remembered that happening: Well, I was seven or eight years old. I remember Daddy and Grandpa going down there after they opened up the road. It was woods there and we used to play on our bikes and I remember my Grandmother coming out and sitting beside the road because she was scared we was gonna get onto 301 because it was always woods back there before, and we could ride and we didn?t have her bothering us, you know. So when the woods got cleared out to 301, then, you know, Granny was sitting out there and daddy and grandpa went down there and done something, put that sign up, I guess. Based upon Pamela?s current age and her recollection, it can be roughly calculated that the sign was put up over 40 years ago. It is a small sign, about three feet by six feet, and has the words “Green?s Garage” in red letters and a smaller “Pennzoil” logo in yellow, along with a large arrow pointing toward the business. The sign sits at the intersection of US Highway 301 and 165th Avenue, the business being located about a hundred yards down 165th Avenue. The sign is important to the business because, due to the trees, one cannot see the actual building or cars at the business location from US Highway 301 until one is already at the 165th Avenue intersection, where one can finally see them through the area that has been cleared out for the road. Mr. Green turned the business over to Pamela before he died, and she has operated the business ever since. She subsequently married Mr. Gary Keen. Mrs. Pamela Green Keen incorporated the business as “Green?s Garage and Wrecking Service, Inc.” There was no evidence as to when the subsequent provision of state law or local ordinance with which the sign fails to comply was passed, but the parties stipulated that the sign is nonconforming, so it is clear that the sign was lawful when erected but could not be put up today. The sign was permitted as a wooden sign with a back-to- back configuration and two supports. That configuration has never changed. The sign was assigned tag numbers BE893 and BE894 by the Department. These tags look like small license plates that are posted on the sign and must be visible from the main travel-way. Mr. Tom Simmons is a senior outdoor advertising inspector for Cardno TBE Consultants (Cardno TBE), a contractor for the Department. Cardno TBE manages the outdoor advertising program for the State of Florida. Mr. Simmons has been employed with them for 12 years, and, before that, performed a similar job for four years with the Department. Mr. Simmons oversees 16 counties in northeast Florida, including Alachua County. Mr. Simmons was very credible in his testimony. Mr. Simmons testified that he was aware of the sign: In the due process of traveling from point A to point B on 301, I had seen it before. Like I stated earlier, after you have been out here a long time like I have, when structures disappear and go away, you pick up on it because it?s something that you are looking for constantly. On September 7, 2011, Mr. Simmons took a picture of the sign. It was down on the ground and was not erect. Mr. Keen testified that shortly before this, he had been having problems with vandals. The windshield of his tow truck had been shattered by a man whose car had been towed to Green?s Garage. That man was caught and ultimately paid restitution. A vehicle had also been stolen from Green?s Garage in June, and Mr. Keen or his wife had requested increased sheriff?s patrols at the business address in August, as evidenced by records from the Alachua County Sheriff?s Department. Mr. Keen testified that people often became upset when their cars were towed and that some were vindictive and would resort to vandalism. He said it was an unavoidable consequence of the business, since he towed cars for the Sheriff?s Department and the Florida Highway Patrol. Mr. Keen testified that he goes down 165th Avenue to US Highway 301, right past where the sign is located, almost every day. His testimony that the sign was not down for more than a day is accepted. Mr. Keen?s first action was to look for signs as to who had knocked it down, but he could not find any evidence such as cigarette butts, or cans, or footprints, so he decided it would do no good to call the police. Mr. Keen re-erected the sign. He did not have to reassemble or add to the materials on the sign in any way, since it was still intact. He just put it back up. The Department issued its original Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit for Violation, dated October 26, 2011, alleging that the sign had been abandoned. Respondent denied this in its response to the Department and requested an administrative hearing. The Department did not request an administrative law judge within 15 days of Respondent?s request. Green?s Garage and Wrecker Service is substantially affected by the Department?s intended action to revoke the permits for the sign. If the permit is lost, the sign must be taken down and no new sign can be erected. Almost a year later, on October 18, 2012, Mr. Simmons took a picture of the sign which showed that it was back up in its original location. He testified that it appeared to be the same sign, constructed of the same materials as before. On March 28, 2013, the Department issued Green?s Garage an Amended Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit for Violation, alleging violations of three different provisions of the rules. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the sign remained substantially the same as it was on the date it became nonconforming. Even if it was determined that the sign did not remain substantially the same simply because it was down for a day or two, simply re-erecting the sign when no assembly or construction was required constituted reasonable repair and maintenance of the sign. The sign was never disassembled throughout the time relevant to this proceeding. Less than 60 percent of the upright supports of the sign were physically damaged at any time relevant to this proceeding. One pole was not damaged at all; the other had only very minor damage. The minor damage to one pole was not such that the normal repair practices of the industry would call for that pole?s replacement. Respondent never had an intention to abandon or discontinue the sign at any time relevant to this proceeding. The facts did not show that the sign structure ceased to exist. All the interrelated parts and material -- including the beams, poles, and stringers -- which were constructed for the purpose of supporting or displaying the message remained completely intact and never ceased to exist as an integrated structure.
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 dismissing the Amended Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit for Violation and allow the outdoor advertising permits to continue. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 30th day of July, 2013.
The Issue This is an appeal from a resolution of the Monroe County Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") approving the decision of the Monroe County Planning Department to deny the application of the Appellants, Robert and Ruth Stoky ("the Stokys"), for a building permit for an "after-the-fact replacement of a 400-square-foot sign." The instant appeal was transferred from the Planning Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article XIV, Monroe County Code, the Hearing Officer Appellate Article, and Monroe County ("the County") has appeared as the Appellee in this case. The ultimate issue presented in this appeal is whether Resolution No. P80-99 of the Planning Commission should be affirmed, reversed, or modified.
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 On 30 April 1976 Salter Advertising Company's application to locate a sign facing north on Salter-owned property off the I-110 near the intersection of Scott and Alcaniz Streets, Pensacola, Florida, was approved (Exhibit 1). By application dated 12 November 1976 Salter requested authorization to erect a sign at the same location facing south (Exhibit 8). This application was disapproved by the District sign inspector on December 20, 1976. What happened to the original of Exhibit 8 was not disclosed at the hearing. On a duplicate original of this application, which was introduced as Exhibit 9, the disapproval on the duplicate original application was erased or whited-out and under date 5-2-77, this application was approved by the District Sign Coordinator, the supervisor of the inspector who had disapproved Exhibit 8. The copy introduced as Exhibit 8 differs from Exhibit 9 in several respects. In the first place it is a carbon copy of what appears to have been the original of Exhibit 8. The "received" stamps dated November 24, 1976, December 13, 1976, and December 21, 1976, appear at different places on Exhibits 8 and 9; Exhibit 8 contains a "returned" stamp with date of 11/15/76 which does not appear on Exhibit 9; Exhibit 9 contains a "received" stamp dated April 29, 1977 which does not appear on Exhibit 8; and Exhibit 9 shows sign to be facing both S and W, while Exhibit 8 shows sign facing S only. The reason given for disapproving Exhibit 8 contained in letter dated January 31, 1977, (Exhibit 5), was that there was inadequate space to place a sign at the location proposed because of the City of Pensacola's setback line 50 feet from the center line of Alcaniz Street. This same condition exists respecting the application approved in Exhibit 1. Accordingly, no sign has been erected at the location despite the approval of the South and West facing sign approved in Exhibit 9. In November of 1976 Respondent contacted Petitioner's sign inspector for Pensacola and arranged to meet at the site of the sign proposed in Exhibits 2 and 4. The property at this location was for sale and Respondent wanted to know if it was suitable for a sign. At this time it was customary for the official who approved the application to go to the site before the application was submitted and advise whether or not an application for a sign at the location would be approved. At the on-site meeting the inspector advised Respondent that approval for the intended sign would be forthcoming. Respondent then purchased the property, submitted the application for sign approval and erected the sign at a cost of some $12,000. The testimony, that it was customary for an applicant after receiving on-site approval, to erect the sign before receiving formal approval of its application for sign permit, was not rebutted. The sign erected by Respondent is located approximately 300 feet from the site for which Salter received approval of its application in Exhibits 1 and The I-110 is part of the interstate system.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding is whether a bill board (sign) bearing permit number BB058 (Tag BB058) was illegally modified as envisioned in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2), by having more than 50 percent of its materials replaced within a 24-month period and thus whether the permit for the billboard should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner (Salter) is the owner and operator of an outdoor advertising sign structure, located on State Road 89 in Santa Rosa County, Florida. The sign is located approximately at .01 miles north of Metz Road. It is undisputed that the sign is a "non-conforming" sign and it is permitted with Tag Number BB058. Hurricane Dennis struck Santa Rosa County on July 10, 2005. It damaged the sign. Prior to the storm the structural components of the sign consisted of two poles in the ground, or ground supports, two vertical supports (2 x 6) four braces, and two horizontal stringers. Salter's initial damage assessment, done by Mr. David McCurdy, was that one pole had broken and that therefore only one pole or ground support needed to be replaced. It was later discovered that the second ground support pole needed to be replaced. The Petitioner ordered one new pole for a cost of $59.00 dollars. That pole was then cut into two pieces to replace both ground support poles for the sign. All other existing parts of the sign were re-used. No new lumber or other materials were purchased for repair of the sign. Exhibit R-9 in evidence shows that the existing plywood vertical supports (wooden sign board) clearly appears to be an original portion of the sign and not new material. The three 2 x 6 horizontal stringers also clearly are re-used lumber from the original sign. One of them has a yellow tag on the end, commonly attached to pressure treated lumber when it comes from the lumber yard. The picture of the original, damaged sign depicted in R-7 also has the yellow tag attached on the end of the 2 x 6 stringer. That fact, together with the weathered appearance of that 2 x 6 stringer, as well as the other two stringers, shows that they are original material from the original sign. The two vertical 2 x 6's appear to be original material as well. Respondent's Exhibit 9 is a photograph depicting the back of the repaired sign. The vertical 2 x 6 support on the left side of the sign, as depicted in photograph R-9, appears brighter or newer looking than the other 2 x 6 structural members. However, it has a visible edge which appears to show weathering. There are also several old nail holes in the board, as well as a bent nail protruding from the rear of the board between it and the plywood vertical support or face of the sign. It thus appears to be a used structural member as well. Additionally, the horizontal stringer and plywood board at the bottom of the sign, on which the name Salter is attached, is clearly a used portion of the original sign and not new material. On balance it appears quite clearly that the only new structural members of the repaired sign are the two new poles which were cut from the original pole purchased for $59.00 dollars. Thus, the Petitioner has established by preponderant, persuasive evidence, including the depicition of the photographs in evidence, that the sign was repaired with substantially less than 50 percent new materials. In essence, it is now a sign composed of the original materials simply being hung on two new poles. Moreover, for purposes of the rule cited below, concerning the definition of a "destroyed" sign, 50 percent of the ground support poles were destroyed (i.e. broken). Thus it could be deemed a destroyed sign. In that case, although the Department is not asserting revocation based upon the value of the materials used in the repair of the sign, the "Florida Construction Order" in evidence, together with the testimony of Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Crawley, establishes persuasively that less than 50 percent of the value of the materials in the sign before the storm damaged it, were replaced in the repair work or, (37 percent). Thus by either measure of the manner of repair, the preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that the sign was properly repaired with less than 50 percent by quantity of new structural materials added to the sign and with less than 50 percent by value of new materials used in the sign repair, when compared to the value of the structural materials and members in the sign immediately prior to the storm damage. In Summary, the Salter General Manager, David McCurdy, ordered one pole to repair the sign. He ordered no vertical supports, braces, or stringers for the repair effort. He oversaw the repairs himself and was at the site while the repairs were being made. The single pole was cut into two pieces so that two ground support poles were replaced. The materials shown lying on the ground in Exhibits R-6 and R-7, were otherwise re-assembled and re-hung on the new poles. Salter assessed the damage at 37 percent by the value measurement. The value of the structural materials in the sign prior to the storm damage was $157.00 dollars. The cost to repair the sign's structure immediately after the hurricane was $59.00, for purchase of the pole. Thus the replacement materials to effect the repair constituted 37 percent of the value of the materials prior to the damage and the only new material incorporated into the repair sign structure was the single, $59.00 pole cut into two pieces. Therefore, it has not been proven by preponderant evidence that the sign was illegally repaired.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witness, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation finding that permit number BB058 for the subject sign structure should remain in effect. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 19th day of January, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura Joyner Nye, Esquire Lindsay, Andrews, and Leonard, P.A. Post Office Box 586 Milton, Florida 32572 J. Ann Cowles, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0485 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Denver Stutler, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Based upon the testimony received the primary issue Is whether the poles were erected before the highway, I-10 was opened to the public. If so, do such poles constitute a sign within the meaning of Section 479.23, Florida Statutes, for the purposes of "grandfathering" such a structure?
Findings Of Fact The subject sign is located one mile east of State Road 71 on I-10. This sign was inspected on October 22, 1980, by an inspector of the Department of Transportation, who observed that the sign's message was visible from the main traveled way of I-10 and did not bear the permit required by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. At the time of this inspection, I-10 was open to the public and was a part of the interstate highway system. See DOT Exhibit 1 and DOT Exhibit 3. The sign was located in an unincorporated area of Jackson County, Florida, which does not have a zoning ordinance. (Transcript, page 39.) Prior to the date of the hearing, a name plate identifying Henderson Signs as responsible for the sign was attached to the sign. (Transcript, page 29.) The Department had notified Henderson Signs of the Notice of Violation, and Henderson Signs requested a formal hearing by letter of its Counsel dated December 19, 1980. See file, Case No. 81-101T. The foregoing facts establish that the subject sign is a sign regulated by the Department pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and that Henderson Signs had a substantial interest in the sign. Gene Henderson testified concerning the erection of the poles and the attachment of a sign face to the poles. The sign poles were erected during the latter portion of 1975, and a sign face advertising "Shell Food Store" was affixed to the poles on March 30, 1978. In February, 1980, the sign face was changed to one advertising "Jon's Steak House." The sign is owned by Henderson Signs, which erected the poles prior to the time I-10 was opened to the public. The Department introduced DOT Exhibit 3, which shows that the section of I-10 along which the subject sign is located was opened to the public on October 14, 1977. The Department introduced DOT Exhibit 6, an aerial photograph of the section of I-10 along which the subject sign is located. This photograph bears the number PD 1996 and is Sheet 9 of 28 sheets taken on December 29, 1976. The photograph's legend reflects it has a scale of one inch equal to 50 feet. The Department's engineer, who established that the scale was accurate, indicated by a red mark the measured location of the sign one mile east of SR 71 on I-10. The photograph was examined by the Department's engineer, who did not observe the presence of poles or an outdoor advertising sign at the location. The photograph was taken nearly one year after the date Henderson stated the poles were erected but does not reveal the presence of the poles. Even if one assumes they were erected, a sign face was not attached until March 30, 1978, several months after I-10 was opened to the public.
Recommendation Having considered the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties, and based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Transportation enter its final order directing the removal of the subject sign within 30 days and without compensation to the sign's owner. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of September, 1981, 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 16th day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles M. Wynn, Esquire 310 Jackson Street Post Office Box 793 Marianna, Florida 32446 Jacob D. Varn, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether respondent's nonconforming sign was destroyed by an Act of God, and therefore its license should be revoked, or whether respondent's sign was merely damaged and the action taken by respondent constitutes reasonable repair and maintenance of the sign.
Findings Of Fact Harvey's Groves, Inc. is a citrus grower, shipper and retailer. Harvey's Groves has three retail stores in Brevard County. Ten billboards advertise these stores. Two signs advertise the store located at the intersection of I-95 and State Road 50. One of those signs is located one mile north of the intersection and advertises to traffic headed south. The other sign, which is the sign involved in this dispute, is located five miles south of the intersection. It is designed to advertise to northbound motorists, especially tourists on their return trip north. This sign has been in existence since the mid or late sixties. Respondent holds DOT sign permit number 7865-10 for the sign located five miles south of the intersection of I-95 and state road 50. The sign is a nonconforming sign as defined in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The sign is located in an area zoned agricultural, and thus would be prohibited except for its nonconforming status. On December 14, 1985, the sign was blown down by a windstorm. All six of the poles which supported the sign snapped a few feet above the ground and below the face of the sign resulting in the rest of the sign structure falling flat on its back. Other than the snapped poles, the sign was only slightly damaged. The two stringers on the top left hand corner of the sign and the top stringer on the right end of the sign had been broken but the remainder of the structure was basically intact. The sign face was still attached to the structure. The majority of the sign face had not been damaged. Mr. Harvey, the only person who saw the sign face prior to its repair, testified that two of the 4' x 8' panels had cracked but were still usable. However, the pictures of the old sign face, introduced-into evidence by respondent, showed that three 4' x 8' panels were missing from the sign face and apparently needed to be replaced. Further, two panels that were in the sign face at the time the pictures were taken contained no copy, and thus appeared to be replacement panels, but no evidence was presented to explain the blank panels. Prior to December 14, 1985, the sign consisted of a 14' x 40' rectangular sign face, with "cutouts" or embellishments which extended the height of the sign at certain points, attached to a sign structure consisting of six perpendicular poles and seven horizontal stringers. The sign face was attached to the stringers which ran the width of the sign. The stringers consisted of 2" x 4" boards which were nailed or spliced together to run the 40' width of the sign. A 2" x 4" board does not come in a 40' length. The poles extended approximately 18 feet above ground level; however, additional boards had been attached to the top of the poles so that the top of the sign extended above the top of the poles. The top two horizontal stringers supporting the sign face were located above the top of the pole that was measured as extending 18 feet above ground level. (R.Ex.#4) The HAGL, or height above ground level, of a sign is measured from the ground to the bottom of the sign face. Immediately prior to December 14, 1985, the HAGL of the sign was approximately 10 feet. However, the evidence was conflicting as to whether the HAGL had always been the same. Mr. King testified that the HAGL was measured in 1976, and at that time the HAGL was five feet. However, although Mr. King personally measured the sign, his testimony was not based on his personal knowledge of the measurement, but was instead based on his recollection of what the DOT records indicated the sign measured. The only record of DOT introduced into evidence, the Outdoor Advertising Inventory Update Listing, listed the HAGL at four feet. However, the computer printout listing alone is not sufficient to establish the HAGL of the sign because there was no competent evidence establishing the source, date, or reliability of the information. Further, other evidence is inconsistent with a 4-foot HAGL. Mr. Wright measured one of the broken poles and determined that the part of the pole still standing was four feet from the ground level to the break on top. However, petitioner's exhibit number 8, which shows the measured pole, notes the location of a 1964 permit tag affixed to the pole. The permit tag is not located on the 4-foot portion of the pole that is still standing; it is located on the portion of the pole that had broken off, and it is located well above the break. Thus, it is apparent that the HAGL could not have been four feet because that would put the permit tag behind the sign face. Petitioner argues that the HAGL had to be only four feet because the broken pole measured 18 feet above ground level and a 14-foot sign face on an 18-foot pole would leave only four feet between the bottom of the sign face and the ground. However, petitioner's argument is premised on the assumption that the top of the sign face was level with the top of the pole. There was no evidence presented to support this assumption. To the contrary, as found in the proceeding paragraph, the evidence clearly indicated that the top of the sign face was located above the top of the pole. Thus, in that there was no competent evidence to the contrary, the testimony of Mr. Harvey, that the HAGL has always been the same, is accepted, and it is found that the HAGL of the sign at all pertinent times prior to December 14, 1985, was approximately 10 feet. Prior to December 14, 1985, the sign was well maintained and in good condition. Every year in October or November the sign was checked to determine if any repairs were necessary. Every two or three years the sign was painted. On December 14 or 15, 1985, Mr. Harvey was advised that the sign was down. He went to the location and found the sign intact, flat on its back, and all six poles broken. Since the sign was down, Mr. Harvey had the sign face removed and taken to Harbor City Signs for painting. About three weeks after the incident, respondent installed six new poles that were 30' in length and extended about 24' above ground level. Respondent put all new stringers on the poles because it was easier and faster to put up new stringers than to remove the stringers from the old poles and put them on the new poles. Because the sign is responsible for a substantial amount of respondent's business, respondent's major concern was to get the sign back up as soon as possible. On January 21 and 22, 1986, Mr. King went to the location. He observed that the old sign structure was on the ground and that a new sign structure, with all new stringers and poles, had been erected. The new structure had nine stringers and the bottom stringer was approximately ten feet above the ground. The sign face had not been attached to the new structure. Mr. King placed a stop work order on the structure. When respondent was ready to attach the repainted sign face, apparently a short time after Mr. King's inspection, the stop work order was discovered. Thereafter, and apparently in an attempt to comply with what he perceived the DOT rules to be, Mr. Harvey had the new stringers removed from the new poles and had the stringers from the old structure affixed to the new poles. The new structure contained 10 horizontal stringers supporting the-sign face, one of which was new material. The cutout was also supported by a new horizontal stringer and a new perpendicular stringer. (P.Ex.10 and 12) The sign face was attached to this structure in March of 1986. The repainted sign face was essentially the same as it was prior to the accident, except that at the bottom, where it previously had stated "Indian River's Finest Citrus", the sign stated "Next Exit Florida's Best." The HAGL of the reerected sign was approximately the same as the old sign. Although Mr. King testified that the new HAGL was about 12 feet and Mr. Wright testified that the new HAGL was from 12-14 feet, their testimony was simply what they estimated the HAGL to be. Mr. Clayton, who actually affixed the stringers and repainted sign face, testified that the repainted sign face was placed at the same height above ground level as it had been before. Further, the photos taken of the sign in March and July (P.Ex.#5 and #10) do not support a finding that the new HAGL was 12-14 feet. Even if the measurement of 28 1/2 feet drawn on petitioner's exhibit number 10 were accurate, and there was no testimony revealing how this figure was derived, it is not useful in determining the HAGL since it purports to measure the distance from the top of the cutout to the ground. The 14' height of the sign does not include the height of the cutout, and there was no testimony to establish how many feet the cutout added to the height of the sign. Therefore, the testimony of Mr. Clayton is accepted as being the most competent evidence regarding the new HAGL. Thus, the HAGL on the sign after the sign face had been replaced was approximately 10 feet. After the sign face was attached in March, the sign looked about the same as it had prior to December. The sign's location in relationship to the road was the same and the HAGL was approximately the same. There was no increase in visibility. As Mr. King testified, there was no significant difference in the way the sign looked after its repair and the way it looked prior to December 14, 1985. There was no evidence presented concerning the actual cost expended by respondent to repair or rebuild the sign. There also was no evidence presented concerning the depreciated value of the sign prior to December 14, 1985. The only evidence presented as to cost was an estimate of the cost to replace the six poles. It was estimated that a new pole would cost about eighty or ninety dollars and that it would cost about thirty dollars per pole to have the poles placed in the ground.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation's violation notices seeking revocation of sign permit number 7865-10 be dismissed and that permit number 7865-10 remain in effect as a permit for the nonconforming sign located five miles south of the intersection of I-95 and State Road 50. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 2nd day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0967T Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in paragraph 2. Rejected as stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Accepted, except evidence showed seven stringers, in paragraph 5. Accepted in paragraph 2. Accepted, except as to date, in paragraph 3. Accepted in paragraphs 8 and 9. Accepted generally in paragraphs 9 and 10. Accepted in paragraph 4. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence in paragraph 11. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1-2. Accepted in paragraph 1. Accepted in paragraph 2. Rejected as irrelevant since only the depreciated value of the structural materials in the- sign is relevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted generally in paragraphs 5 and 6. Accepted in paragraph 7. 8-9. Accepted generally in paragraphs 3 and 4, except as to number panels replaced and damage to stringers. Whether panels could have been reused is irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant (see ruling on paragraph 4). Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence and contrary finding in paragraph 8. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted except as to date in paragraph 9 and in Background section. Accepted generally in paragraph 10. Rejected as irrelevant since only actual costs of new materials is irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted as stated in paragraph 10. Accepted in paragraph 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victor M. Watson, Esquire 1970 Michigan Avenue Building C Cocoa, Florida Kaye Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the application contains knowingly false or misleading information; or Whether the Department is estopped to revoke the permits.
Findings Of Fact By application for outdoor advertising sign permits dated December 19, 1989 (Exhibit 1), Dolphin Outdoor Advertising requested permits for a sign to be located along I-4 in Polk County, Florida 100 feet west of Kraft Road. The application stated that the proposed sign was 1600 feet from the nearest permitted sign. The District DOT sign inspector to whom this application was referred for processing checked the records for signs located within 1000 feet of the proposed location under the mistaken understanding that the minimum spacing requirement for signs along interstate highways was 1000 feet. After determining there were no valid conflicting signs, the inspector, who had been employed by the department approximately six months, approved the application and tags numbered AY 108-35 and AY 109-35 were issued on February 24, 1989. In the interim, the applicant, upon learning that his application would be approved, contacted the landowner and entered into a lease for the property and on February 17, 1989, paid Florida Log and Timber $5000 for the first year's lease (Exhibit 11) on this property. The applicant also paid the finder of the site some $4300 for services and expenses in November, 1988. (Exhibits 7 and 8) In mid-March 1989, while discussing these permits with her supervisor, the inspector who had issued the permit to Respondent learned that the required spacing between signs along interstate highways is 1500 feet instead of 1000 feet which is the minimum spacing along federal-aid primary highways. By letter dated March 17, 1989 (Exhibit 3) the Department advised Respondent that permits AY 108-35 and AY 109-35 were issued in error because of a valid existing permit for a sign located 1056 feet west of Respondent's proposed sign. The permits were therefore stated to be no longer valid, and these proceedings followed. Petitioner's letter of March 17, 1989 was received by Respondent before construction on the sign started but after Respondent received a building permit from Polk County dated February 27, 1989 at a cost to Respondent of $101.20.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking permits AY 108-35 and AY 109-35 issued to Dolphin Outdoor Advertising for a sign along I-4 100 feet west of Kraft Road in Polk County. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 5th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Scott Hill, Pro Se 1718 Golfside Drive Winter Park, Florida 32972 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 =================================================================
