The Issue Whether the respondents or some of them erected and maintained outdoor advertising signs in violation of Rule 14-10.006(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, because more than two advertisements or "messages" were visible to motorists at the same location?
Findings Of Fact Visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards both of the same, concededly lawful size, mounted on a single structure, one on top of the other, 1.75 miles east of State Road 69 in Jackson County. The upper sign advertises a Holiday Inn in Marianna. The bottom sign advertises a Best Western motel (yellow logo against black background) and a McDonald's restaurant (golden arches and white lettering against a red background.) Between the two businesses's names on the bottom sign board appears "11 MI EXIT 21" against a white background. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1716T). Also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted on the same structure, one on top of the other, 2.4 miles east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises the Chipley Motel. Over the words "THIS EXIT," the central portion of the lower sign advertises a Stuckey's store. Flanking this central portion, both ends of the billboard are taken up with advertisements featuring petroleum trademarks (a scallop shell and a star.) Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1714T). Visible to east-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted one on top of the other on the same poles, 1.2 miles west of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises a single business establishment. Underneath, half the sign is devoted to advertising the Washington Motor Inn and half to touting The Outlet Center. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1923T). Visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted on the same structure one on top of the other, 2.7 miles east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advises motorists of the proximity of a motel. The lower sign advertises both a Chevron filling station and a Western Sizzlin restaurant, devoting half the panel to each. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1921T). Also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 is a pair of billboards mounted one over the other at a site 1.3 miles west of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper panel is devoted exclusively to informing the driving public of a nearby motel. The lower billboard, like the lower billboard located 1.7 miles east of State Road 69, advertises a McDonald's restaurant and a Best Western motel, and does so in a similar bipartite manner. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89- 1922T) Finally, also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 is another pair of billboards mounted on top of one another on the same poles, a mile east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises a McDonald's restaurant. Like the lower sign located 2.4 miles east of State Road 77, the lower sign located a mile east advertises not only Stuckey's, but also Shell and Texaco gasolines. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1924T). A handbook DOT employees use depicts three billboards at one location, over the caption: "One of the three faces is illegal if erected after January 28, 1972. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. DOT has not promulgated the handbook as a rule. The evidence did not establish when the billboards in question here were erected. But for Milford C. Truette's perspicacity, these cases might never have arisen. As acting outdoor advertising supervisor for DOT's District II, he told Elsie Myrick, a property and outdoor advertising inspector for DOT, that she "might want to check into ... [the signs involved here] and see that they were in violation." Myrick deposition p. 8. In the subsequently formed opinion of Ms. Myrick, it is unlawful for an outdoor advertising sign to advertise three or more locations at which the same advertiser does business or three or more businesses at the same location, although the proprietor of a single store might lawfully advertise three or more products for sale at the store, and a motel owner is free to advertise a restaurant and a cocktail lounge, at least if they are under the same roof. Respondent's signs are in violation, in Ms. Myrick's view, because, "You're getting across more messages than what you're allowed in a space." Myrick deposition, p. 15. Ms. Myrick thought a sign advertising several stores housed in a single mall would be illegal, but Mr. Truette and Mr. Kissinger, DOT motorist information services coordinator, disagreed. Ms. Myrick rejected the suggestion that common ownership of advertisers would make a difference, but Mr. Kissinger's views on this point were less clear. T.52-3. Mr. Kissinger believes that an outdoor advertising sign can advertise multiple locations at which an enterprise conducts business, or even multiple business entities, if they are all located on the same parcel of real estate.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the notices to show cause issued in each of these consolidated cases. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 89-1714T, 89-1716T, 89-1921T, 89-1922T, 89-1923T, 89-1924 Except for the last sentence in proposed finding of fact No. 4, petitioner's proposed findings of fact 1 through 5 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact were not numbered, but have been treated fully in the recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact The 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 Whether Appellant was wrongfully denied a variance of 21.33 feet to construct a second floor deck at 673 Bay Esplanade, Five Palms Motel Condo, Clearwater, Florida.
Findings Of Fact John Shaw, a resident of Massachusetts, purchased the condominium for which the variance is here requested in December, 1988 without first visiting the property or inquiring about zoning restrictions. The unit purchased is on the second floor of a two story building earlier converted from a hotel or motel into condominiums. The seller told Shaw he could construct a deck over the existing deck on the ground floor condominium below the unit purchased by Shaw. While the construction of this deck was in progress it was discovered no permit had been pulled for the project and the work was stopped. The subsequent application for a permit was denied because the proposed deck encroached some 21.33 feet into the setback area. The application for a variance was denied by the Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board and this appeal followed. The two buildings comprising this complex were erected many years ago and are non-conforming, i.e., the buildings themselves violate the current Development Code. An existing deck extending into the setback area was constructed on the unit directly below the condominium purchased by Shaw and a similar deck extending to the seawall was constructed on an adjacent building. No permits are on file for those decks. Construction of the proposed deck would improve the livability of the condominium greatly by expanding the area usable for looking seaward. The condominium has been used without this deck for many years. This property is zoned CR-24 and the setback requirement is 25 feet from the water's edge.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, San Ann Food Stores, is the owner of an outdoor advertising sign located 5.89 miles east of the Hillsborough County Line, on the east side of Interstate 4 in Polk County. More specifically, the sign is east of the U.S. 98 and I-4 intersection which lies just north of the City of Lakeland. The sign is two-sided, with one side facing eastward, and the other facing westward. It sits on top of two poles which are approximately sixty feet high. The parties have stipulated that the sign is visible from I-4, although just barely, and lies within five hundred feet of that highway. They have also stipulated that no permit has ever been issued by petitioner, Department of Transportation (DOT), authorizing its use. The sign does not lie within the corporate limits of a city; however, this is immaterial to the resolution of these cases. On an undisclosed date, a DOT inspector observed the sign while conducting an inspection of another sign and found no display of a current valid permit tag. After checking his records, he found that no permit had ever been issued authorizing its erection and use. It was also determined, without contradiction, that the sign is within five hundred feet of the interchange of I-4 and U.S. 98. Such an intersection is classified as a restricted interchange. According to Rule 14 10.06(2)(b)2. and state law, no signs are permitted within five hundred feet of such an interchange. The sign in question was erected by Sun Oil Company around 1967 or 1968 when no permit was required. Respondent purchased the property on which the sign is located in April, 1978. It assumed that Sun Oil had obtained all necessary permits from the state to maintain and use the sign. It did not learn that Sun had failed to obtain a sign permit until the Notice of Violation was issued by DOT in February, 1985. It is willing to repay all fees owed during prior years if DOT will allow the sign to remain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's sign (facing east and west) be found in violation of the statutes and rules cited in the conclusion of law portion of this order, and that it be removed. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 7th day of August, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based on the uncontested facts alleged in Petitioner's Motion For Summary Recommended Order and from the Final Orders issued in Bayshore Homeowners Association v. Department of Environmental Regulation and Grove Isle, Inc., Case Nos. 79-2186, 79-2324 and 79-2354. On December 29, 1980 DER entered a Final Order on the application of Petitioner for a 90 slip marina in Biscayne Bay, Florida. The Order denied the permit because Grove Isle had not demonstrated that the project is "affirmatively in the public interest" and because the applicant had not demonstrated that it "can meet ambient water quality standards within the project area itself." In the Recommended Order on Remand the Hearing Officer had defined "existing ambient waters" to be the area in the cove between Grove Isle and the Miami mainland. The Final Order rejected that concept and held if any waters others than those contained within the immediate project site were to be considered as ambient, Petitioner must request a mixing zone as part of its application. See Section 17-4.242, (1)(a)2.b. and Section 17-4.244, Florida Administrative Code. By a letter received at the Department of Environmental Regulation on May 20, 1981, Grove Isle reapplied for the boat dock permit which was the subject of the foregoing proceedings. Petitioner's application, which was in the form of a letter from counsel, stated: May 18, 1981 Mr. Larry O'Donnell Department of Environmental Regulation Post Office Box 3858 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 RE: GROVE ISLE - Application for Boat Dock Dear Mr. O'Donnell: On behalf of Grove Isle, LTD, I am reapplying for the boat dock permit previously applied for by Grove Isle, LTD. Please consider this a short-form application. Your office designated a previous file number, DF 13-7956, to this matter. In conjunction with that application I am applying for a mixing zone, pursuant to Rule 17-4.244, for both the construction and operation of this marina. Please refer to your file on the previous application and incorporate said documents into this reapplication. I am submitting with this application: A scale drawing (one inch = 100') of the proposed facility. (which you have) A certified survey of the proposed mixing zone. (one inch = 100') An application fee of $20.00 A copy of the Final Order issued by Jacob D. Varn, former secretary of DER, on the previous application. A copy of the Notice of Intent previously issued for this project, dated 9/23/79. (which you have) As you will note from reading Mr. Varn's Final Order, he concluded that issuance of this permit was not appropriate inasmuch as the applicant had not applied for nor received a designated mixing zone. We do not necessarily agree with this order and have, in fact, appealed this decision to the First District Court of Appeal. However, in an attempt to keep this matter from becoming any more complicated, we have decided to reapply for the permit and to apply for a mixing zone. We do not concede that a mixing zone should be required for this project or that the facility will result in the release of any pollutants so as to significantly degrade ambient water quality. However, should this project, through its construction or operation, result in the release of any pollutants, I believe they would be limited to: Bottom sediments placed in suspension by the installation of the concrete piles used to support the docking facility during construction; Minimal amounts of oil and grease which may escape from the various vessels moored to the docks; The constituants of anti-fouling paint which may be applied to the hulls of the various vessels moored at the docks. Turbidity will be controlled by the use of curtains during construction. If lowered water quality occurs at all in this project it would only occur within the designated mixing zone, as per Rule 17-4.242 (2)(b) F.A.C. Please advise me should additional information be needed to process this re-application. Yours truly, /s/ KENNETH G. OERTEL On June 19, 1981, DER sent a "completeness summary letter" to Petitioner which requested the following information: Your project is in Outstanding Florida Waters. Please provide the following items demonstrating compliance with Section 17-4.242, Florida Administrative Code. Please demonstrate that this project is clearly in the public interest and that this project will not result in the degradation of ambient water quality beyond the 30 day construction period. Petitioner responded by letter dated June 22, 1981 and which was received at DER on June 25, 1981. Petitioner said in pertinent part: Dear Mr. Duke: If you would check your previous file no. DF-13-7956, I believe you will find all the information you have requested has previously been provided to your office either in that permit file or through the administrative hearings held in pursuit of this application. I think it would be more fruitful if you would communicate with Al Clark, Attorney for DER, with regard to the status of this application. As I do not wish to speak on behalf of Mr. Clark, I believe you should confirm the status of this application with him, particularly in view of our attempt to comply with Secretary Varn's Final Order which suggests the application for this mixing zone. The record reflects no further correspondence between the parties until September 23, 1981 when the Department entered a Final Order Denying Application for Permit. The Order provided that: This project was reviewed previously (DF 13-7956) and was determined not to be clearly in the public interest pursuant to Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. No further evidence upon resubmittal, has been provided to clearly demonstrate that this project is in the public interest. Furthermore, the requested mixing zone exceeds that allowable pursuant to Section 17-4.244, F.A.C. and can be applied only during the construction period, pursuant to Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. During the operation of this facility ambient water quality is expected to be degraded in violation of Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. This order was entered ninety-one days after DER received Petitioner's June 22, 1981 letter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the permit applied for by Petitioner, Grove Isle, Ltd. on May 20, 1981 subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Intent To Issue Permit dated October 23, 1979 which is a part of the record in Bayshore Homeowners Association et al., v. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and Grove Isle, Inc., Case Nos. 79-2186, 79-2324 and 79-2354. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 12th day of February, 1982.
Findings Of Fact In May, 1982, Respondent entered into a 10 year lease with the owner of certain real estate on the East side of I-95, a federal highway now and at the time in issue, in Palm Beach County, Florida, for the erection of an advertising signboard. The site in question was located 850 feet more or less north of the intersection of I-95 with State Road 710. In order to get both state and county permits for this sign, Respondent had a survey made of the area to determine if the site of the proposed sign was more that 1,000 feet from the closest sign on the same side of the highway so as to conform to the requirements of the pertinent statute and DOT rules. This survey, completed in June, 1982, indicated that the proposed site for Respondent's sign was 1040 feet from the closest billboard on the same side of the highway. This survey, however, was not done in such a manner as to accurately indicate the distance in question because the base lines for measurement were not perpendicular to the edge of the pavement. The sign was not erected immediately, however, and to be sure that the siting was accurate, Respondent again, in July, 1983, had another survey performed by a different surveyor which reflected that the distance between the Respondent's sign and that next north of it was in excess of 1000 feet. The Respondent was issued two permits for the sign in question and has received annual renewals of those permits in 1984, 1985, and 1986. The permits in question are AH 297-12 and AH 298-12. At no time has Petitioner indicated any intention to revoke either of these permits. The billboard next north of the sign in issue here was erected by Respondent on property leased in May, 1977. This earlier dual-sided sign was issued permits number 2721 and 2722. Apparently, the tags for these permits were lost as on April 24, 1980, DOT issued new tag numbers to Respondent, AC 133-12 for 2721, and AC 134-12 for 2722. Later on, in May, 1984, Mr. Fred J. Harper, District Administrator for Petitioner, having reason to believe the two signs were too close, measured the distance between the southern and northern signs involved here. He took three separate measurements; one with an electronic odometer, one with a walking wheel belonging to DOT, and the third with a walking wheel belonging to Respondent's representative. In each of the three measurements, Mr. Harper attempted to measure from a baseline to endline each of which was perpendicular running from the post to the edge of the pavement. Though his perpendiculars were not measured by instruments, he is satisfied from his eight years of experience in his current position that his eye is accurate enough to minimize error. The three measurements made along the edge of the roadway, reflected distances of 884, 888, and 886 feet, respectively. To confirm these measurements, Mr. Harper contacted the District Surveyor, Mr. McCarthy, and requested a survey be done to establish the distance. Though he did not personally go to the site with the surveyor, he did point it out on maps and aerial surveys of the area. The survey by DOT surveyors was done by or under the supervision of Mr. McCarthy. The measurements were based on a starting point at the center line of the I-95 right of way down a line perpendicular to each pole with a 90 degree turn at the pole toward the other pole. The distance between the two poles, determined by an electronic distance measuring device, was no more than 894.4 feet. The Department notified Respondent of this in writing. This distance was not measured along the edge of the pavement, as called for in Rule 14-10.06(1)(b)4b, Florida Administrative Code, but, according to Mr. McCarthy, even if it had been, the distance in this case would have been only about 20 feet more than the 894.4 feet measured due to the slight curve in the road. In any case, the total distance would have remained under 1,000 feet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED That: Petitioner, Department of Transportation enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's sign permits AH 297-12 and AH 298-12, and directing the signs be removed. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of December, 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-2248T The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Covered in Findings of Fact 1, 3, 4 and 7. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 2 and 7. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Incorporated in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 7. Paragraph 1 - approved. Paragraph 2 - approved. Paragraph 3 - approved. Approved. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as conjecture after the fact. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Department of Transportation properly issued a Notice of Violation for an illegally erected sign to Lamar of Tallahassee and whether the Petitioner's applications for a sign maintained at the corner of SR366/West Pensacola Street and Ocala Road, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, should be granted as a non-conforming sign or because the Department did not act on either the 2005 or 2007 application for the same sign in a timely manner.
Findings Of Fact Under Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, the Department is the state agency responsible for regulating outdoor advertising signs located within 660 feet of the state highway system, interstate, or federal-aid primary system. Lamar owns and operates outdoor advertising signs in the State of Florida. On March 15, 2005, Lamar applied for a permit from the Department to erect the subject sign. The permit was denied because it was within 1,000 feet of another permitted sign owned by Lamar that is located on SR366/West Pensacola Street. The review process for Lamar’s application for a sign permit involved a two-step process. Initially, Mr. Strickland, the State Outdoor Advertising Administrator, reviewed Lamar’s application. He determined that the sign was within 1,000 feet of another permitted structure. On April 12, 2007, he preliminarily denied Petitioner’s application, prepared the Notice of Denied Application reflecting a denial issuance date of April 12, 2005, and entered his preliminary decision on the Department’s internal database. On the same date, Mr. Strickland forwarded the permit file along with his preliminary decision and letter to his superior, Juanice Hagan. The preliminary decision was made within 30 days of receipt of Lamar’s application. Ms. Hagan did not testify at the hearing. However, at some point, Ms. Hagan approved Mr. Strickland’s preliminary decision and entered the official action of the Department on the Department’s public database. That database reflects the final decision to deny the application was made on April 20, 2005, outside of the 30 days of receipt of Lamar’s application. On the other hand, Ms. Hagan signed the Notice of Denied Application with an issuance date of April 12, 2005. Her signature indicates that her final approval, whenever it may have occurred, related back to April 12, 2005, and was within 30 days of receipt of Lamar’s application. Lamar received the Department’s letter denying its application, along with the return of its application and application fee. The letter contained a clear point of entry advising Lamar of its hearing rights under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. However, Lamar did not request a hearing concerning the denied application as required in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0042(3). Nor did Lamar inform the Department’s clerk in writing that it intended to rely on the deemer provision set forth in Section 120.60, Florida Statutes. Absent a Chapter 120 challenge to the Department’s action, the Department’s denial became final under Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0042(3). After the denial, Lamar performed a Height Above Ground Level (HAGL) test on the proposed sign’s site. The test is used to determine whether the sign face can be seen from a particular viewing location. Lamar determined that the South face could not be seen from SR366/West Pensacola Street due to some large trees located along the West side of Ocala Road and behind the gas station in front of the sign. Pictures of the area surrounding the sign’s proposed location, filed with the 2005 permit application, show a number of trees that are considerably taller than the roof of the adjacent gas station and utility poles. These trees appear to be capable of blocking the view of the sign face from SR366/West Pensacola Street and support the results from Lamar’s HAGL test. Since the sign could not be seen from a federal aid highway, it did not require a permit. Therefore, around August or October 2005, Lamar built the subject sign on the west side of Ocala Road and 222 feet north of SR 366/West Pensacola Street in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. As constructed, the sign sits on a large monopole with two faces, approximately 10 1/2 feet in height and 36 feet wide. The sign’s height above ground level is 28 feet extending upwards to 40 feet. The north face of the sign does not require a permit since it can only be seen from Ocala Road. Likewise, at the time of construction and for some time thereafter, the south face of the sign did not require a permit since it was not visible from a federal aid highway. Following construction of the subject sign, some of the large trees were removed. The removal caused the south face of the sign to be clearly visible from the main traveled way of SR366/West Pensacola Street. On March 21, 2007, the sign was issued a Notice of Violation for an illegally erected sign because it did not have a permit. The Notice of Violation stated: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the advertising sign noted below is in violation of section 479.01, Florida Statutes. An outdoor advertising permit is required but has not been issued for this sign. The Notice cited the wrong statute and, on June 12, 2008, an amended Notice of Violation for an illegally erected sign was issued by the Department. The Amended Notice changed the statutory citation from Section 479.01 to Section 479.07, Florida Statutes. Both the original Notice and Amended Notice stated the correct basis for the violation as: "An outdoor advertising permit is required but has not been issued for this sign." On December 18, 2007, Lamar submitted a second application for an Outdoor Advertising permit for an existing sign. The application was denied on January 8, 2008, due to spacing conflicts with permitted signs BX250 and BX251. The denial cited incorrect tag numbers for the sign causing the spacing conflict. The incorrect tag numbers were brought to the attention of Mr. Strickland. The Department conducted a field inspection of the sign’s area sometime between December 20, 2007 and January 20, 2008. The inspection confirmed that the spacing conflict was caused by signs BZ685 and BZ686. The signs were within 839 feet of the subject sign and owned by Lamar. An Amended Notice of Denied Application was issued by the Department on January 24, 2008. However, the evidence was clear that the Department made the decision to deny the application based on spacing conflicts on January 8, 2008. The fact that paperwork had to be made to conform to and catch up with that decision does not change the date the Department initially acted upon Lamar’s application. Therefore, the 2007 application was acted upon within 30 days. The Department’s employee responsible for issuing violation notices is Lynn Holschuh. She confirmed that if the south sign face was completely blocked from view from the main traveled way of SR366/West Pensacola Street when it was originally constructed, a sign permit would not be required from the Department. Ms. Holschuh further testified that if a change in circumstances occurred resulting in the subject sign becoming visible from the main traveled way of Pensacola Street, the sign might be permitted by the Department as a non-conforming sign, if it met the criteria for such. In this case, the south face of the sign was once legal and did not require a permit because several large trees blocked the sign’s visibility from a federal aid highway. The removal of the trees that blocked the sign caused the sign to become visible from a federal aid highway. In short, the south sign face no longer conformed to the Florida Statutes and Rules governing such signs and now is required to have a sign permit. However, the sign has not been in continuous existence for seven years and has received a Notice of Violation since its construction in 2005. The evidence was clear that the sign does not meet the requirements to qualify as a nonconforming sign and cannot be permitted as such. Therefore, Petitioner’s application for a sign permit should be denied and the sign removed pursuant to the Notice of Violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying Petitioner a permit for the sign located on the west side of Ocala Road, 222 feet North of SR366/West Pensacola Street and enforcing the Notice of Violation for said sign and requiring removal of the south sign face pursuant thereto. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kimberly Clark Menchion, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James C. Myers Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Alexis M. Yarbrough, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Stephanie Kopelousos, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
