The Issue This case arose upon the filing of a complaint against Dick Signs by J. H. Hobson, Outdoor Advertising Agent, Department of Transportation Right of Way Bureau. The case was thereafter referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Department of Transportation for hearing to determine whether Dick Signs was in violation of Section 497.07, Florida Statutes, by erecting, using or maintaining advertising structures without acquiring and affixing to said structures the permits required by law. Counsel for the Department of Transportation moved for additional time to submit evidence of notice of the hearing and was granted leave to file with the Hearing Officer said notice not later than October 28, 1975. Having examined the notice, the Hearing Officer finds that notice was given in the manner and within the time prescribed by Chapters 120 and 79, Florida Statutes. James H. Hobson was called and his sworn testimony was received regarding the six signs charged to be in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, in the Administrative Complaint. Based upon his testimony the Hearing Officer makes the following findings:
Findings Of Fact The first sign referenced in the charges was located on S.R. 775 and ALT 45, 2.75 miles south of its junction with U.S. 41. It was inspected by the witness Hobson on June 18, 1975. This sign was 24' x 10', bore a 1972 permit with number 2485-6-72 issued to Dick Signs, bore a plague indicating it was owned by Dick Signs, and had an advertisement for First Federal on the date of inspection. The annual licensing fee is $6, and has not been paid for the years 1973, 1974 and 1975. The second sign referenced in the charges was located on S.R. 775 and ALT 45, 2.31 miles south of its junction with U.S. 41. This sign was inspected by the witness Hobson on June 18, 1975. This sign was 10'x 40' and was double faced, presenting advertising copy on two directions which could be seen from the highway. It bore a 1969 permit, number 4282-10-69 issued to Dick Signs and bore a plague indicating it was opened by Dick Signs on the date of inspection. The annual fee for said double faced sign is $20, and this fee has not been paid for 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975. The third sign referenced in the charges was located on S.R. 775 and ALT 45, 2.59 miles south of its junction with U.S. 41. It was inspected by the witness Hobson on June 18, 1975. This sign was 10' x 40', bore a 1972 permit number 4195-10-72 issued to Dick Signs and bore a plague indicating it was owned by Dick Signs on the date it was inspected. The annual fee for this sign is $10, and this fee had not been paid for the years 1973, 1974, and 1975. The fourth sign referenced in the charges was located on S.R. 775 and ALT 45, 1.10 miles south of its junction with U.S. 41. It was inspected by the witness Hobson on June 18, 1975. This sign was 10' x 24' and bore a plague indicating it was owned by Dick Signs. It did not have any permit. The annual fee for said sign is $6. The fifth sign referenced in the charges is located on S.R. 775 and ALT 45, 1.10 miles south of its junction with U.S. 41. It was personally inspected by the witness Hobson on June 18, 1975. This sign bore a 1972 permit number 2076-4-72 issued to Dick Signs and a plague indicating it was owned by Dick Signs on the date of inspection. The size of this sign requires an annual fee of $6 and had not been paid in 1973, 1974, and 1975. The sixth sign referenced in the charges was located on S.R. 775 and ALT 45, 1.68 miles south of its junction with U.S. 41. It was personally inspected by the witness Hobson on June 18, 1975. On the date of inspection it bore a 1972 permit issued to Dick Signs and a plague indicating it was owned by Dick Signs. The annual fee for this sign is $10 and it had not been paid in 1973, 1974, and 1975. The witness testified that Dick Signs was a licensed outdoor advertiser holding License No. 18233, valid for 1975. The witness further testified that in the course of his duties be would receive any applications for renewal of the permits of the signs identified above, and these applications had not been received prior to the hearing.
The Issue Whether two signs owned by Respondent Simbo's Restaurant-Auto-Truck Stop, one located along Interstate 10 approximately .8 of a mile east of State Road 79 and the other located along Interstate 10 approximately .8 of a mile west of State Road 79, each bearing the copy: "Simbo's Restaurant-Auto-Truck Stop Next Exit-Open 24 Hours", are in violation of Section 479.07, Florida Statutes and Section 479.11, Florida Statutes, neither of which have been granted a permit and both of which are within twenty (20) feet of the right-of-way of Interstate 10.
Findings Of Fact No permit has been issued to or is affixed to either of the subject signs. The distance from the fence running parallel to Interstate 10 to the sign located approximately .8 of a mile west of State Road 79 is fourteen and one-half feet. The distance from the fence running parallel to Interstate 10 to the sign located approximately .8 of a mile east of State Road 79 is five and eight-tenths feet. The distances from both signs to the edge of the right-of- way of Interstate 10 are less than five hundred (500) feet. No application for the erection of either sign was made prior to the erection of the signs. These signs were erected in the first half of the year 1976 on private property. The Respondent contends that the classifications established in the Florida Outdoor Advertising Law, Chapter 479, violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. There is no merit to this contention.
Recommendation Remove subject signs if such signs have not been removed by the owner within ten (10) days after the final order herein. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of January, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 J. D. Bodiford, Esquire Post Office Box 1022 Panama City, Florida 32401 Mr. J. E. Jordan District Sign Coordinator Department of Transportation Post Office Box 607 Chipley, Florida 32428
The Issue Whether Petitioner's applications for two outdoor advertising signs in Sumter County, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this permitting dispute, Petitioner, Rite Media Enterprises, Inc., seeks the issuance of two state sign permits from Respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT). In preliminary decisions dated August 24, 1998, DOT denied the applications on the ground the land owners had not given Petitioner permission to place the signs on their property. As an additional ground, DOT alleged that one sign violated the spacing requirements by being "[i]n conflict with a[n] existing permitted sign." Petitioner contends, however, that it has two legally enforceable leases with the property owners, and that its applications should be approved. If the applications are approved, the signs would be placed on two parcels of property near Interstate 75 in Sumter County, Florida, one on the east side and one on the west side of the highway. Both parcels are owned by Intervenors, William and Debra Farkus. On July 29, 1998, Dan Hucke, a real estate representative for Petitioner, was "scouting" for suitable billboard locations and decided that Intervenors' property would be a desirable location. After Hucke discussed the matter with Intervenors, the parties agreed to execute lease agreements that day for the two parcels of property in question. A copy of the lease agreements is found in Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2 received in evidence. In Hucke's presence, both Debra and William Farkus executed each lease agreement and a Notice of Lease. The documents reflect that only one person, Hucke, served as a witness. Hucke then carried the agreements to Petitioner's president, who executed the agreements on behalf of the corporation. In addition, Hucke's wife, a notary public, placed her seal on the Notice of Lease indicating that the signatures had been signed in her presence after an oath was administered to the lessors. Intervenors were not present when the documents were notarized. The day after the documents were executed, Debra Farkus contacted Hucke by telephone. Hucke told her he would be in the area the following Monday (August 2) and they could "work out" any problems she might have with the agreements. The same day (July 30), Debra Farkus faxed a handwritten letter to Hucke advising him to "[c]ancel the lease as per our conversation immediately," and to not "record them as per our conversation." After receiving the cancellation notice, Hucke met briefly with the Intervenors, but contended at hearing that he could not recall the substance of that conversation. On the other hand, William Farkus testified that in that meeting he again reiterated his desire for the agreements to be cancelled. In any event, Hucke acknowledged that he left the meeting with the impression that the Intervenors objected to the agreements. Despite receiving the foregoing notice and oral advice from Intervenors, Hucke nonetheless believed he had valid leases. Whether he recorded the leases is not of record. However, he promptly filed two applications for sign permits with the DOT, and he enclosed a copy of the lease agreements to evidence the fact that he had the permission of the property owners. When a DOT inspector conducted a preliminary investigation of the applications, he learned that Intervenors did not consent to having the signs on their property. Under long-standing DOT policy (since at least 1992), when this type of dispute occurs, which the inspector says happens "[a]ll the time," it requires that the applicant either submit an affidavit (or present testimony at a hearing) evidencing the fact that the property owners have consented to the placement of a sign on their property, or submit an order of a circuit court reflecting that the lease agreement is enforceable. Where a dispute such as this occurs, in no circumstance does DOT attempt to construe the legal sufficiency of a lease agreement or adjudicate the rights of a party under a lease agreement. The foregoing policy is applied by the agency on a statewide basis, without discretion, and it has a logical and rational basis, particularly since an administrative agency lacks jurisdiction to construe contracts or make property-right determinations. At the hearing, Intervenors again stated that they did not authorize Petitioner to place its signs on their property. In addition, Petitioner did not submit a court order indicating that enforceable leases between the parties existed. DOT presented testimony which established that the proposed sign location in Case No. 98-4459T would violate statutory spacing requirements because the location conflicted with an existing nearby sign. There was no evidence to contradict this assertion.
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 the applications for state sign permits filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 16th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Andrew B. Thomas, Esquire Post Office Box 4961 Orlando, Florida 32802-4961 Kelly A. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Pamela S. Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of Sections 479.07(1) and 479.11(1) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Fred C. Glass, Outdoor Advertising Inspector, testified that he had inspected an outdoor advertising sign located on State Road 8 (I-10) 3.48 miles south of State Road 53 which was not located within a municipality. Said sign was located 31 feet from the right of way of I-10. His inspection revealed that said sign did not have a permit tag affixed. Located near the sign was a small building without windows and a gas pump. There was no one present on the site when inspected. The building and pump wore locked up. Glass testified that the pump and building did not look as if it had ever been used. Glass identified Composite Exhibit 1, as polaroid pictures he had taken on October 3, 1975 at 3:00 p.m. and they were received into evidence. From his duties Glass would have been aware of any application received for such a sign, and he stated he had never received an application. Glass said he had not talked with Davis about the sign, but concluded it was Davis' sign from the nature of the sign's advertisement, and the fact that the J. B. Davis' service station was located at the next exit. J. B. Davis testified that the sign was not his but was located on the site of a service station belonging to L. H. Thurman, Route 2, Lee, Florida. J. B. Davis identified Exhibit 2A as a copy of Thurman's Sales Tax Certificate and Exhibit 2B as Thurman's gasoline Dealers License which David had obtained from Thurman. Davis testified that as the gasoline distributor for the counties in the area he supplied gasoline to Thurman who operated the station. He supplied a couple of hundred gallons to Thurman per month. The property where the station is located is leased by Thurman from a Mr. Woods. Davis further testified that one would take the "next exit" to go to Thurman's station.
Recommendation Having failed to show J. B. Davis' ownership of the sign, the Hearing Officer recommends the charges be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of February, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay Hendrickson, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 J. B. Davis, President J. B. Davis, Inc. Base and Duval Street Madison, Florida 32340
The Issue Whether DOT should void outdoor advertising permits Nos. AT402-35 and AT403-35?
Findings Of Fact On March 20, 1987, (T. 12) DOT issued advertising sign permits to respondent, Nos. AT 402-35 and AT 403-35, authorizing construction of a metal outdoor advertising sign "monopole" 43 feet high with sign boards facing north and south, less than a tenth of a mile south of Alternate U.S. Highway 90, a "federal aid primary road" (T. 11), immediately west of State Road 297 in Escambia County. DOT's Exhibit No. 1. In May of 1988, Outdoor Media, Inc., applied for a permit to construct an outdoor advertising sign at a site five or six hundred feet east of the intersection of State Road 297 and Alternate U.S. Highway 90. Because the site proposed by Outdoor Media, Inc., is visible from and lies within 660 feet of the main traveled way of Alternate U.S. Highway 90 and because it lies within 1,000 feet of the site on which DOT had authorized Salter to erect signs, DOT denied Outdoor Media, Inc.'s, application. When Philip N. Brown, who works in DOT's outdoor advertising section, reported that no sign had ever been built at the site for which Salter had obtained permits Nos. AT402-35 and AT403-35, DOT notified Salter of its intent to void and revoke the permits. DOT's Exhibit No. 2. Some time after June 19, 1988, more than 18 days after DOT sent Salter notice of its intent to void the sign permits, Salter erected a wooden sign on the site. On March 10, 1988, Salter had obtained a building permit from Escambia County for the metal monopole structure, but, because more than 180 days had elapsed without any call for inspection, Escambia County declared the building permit null and void on September 23, 1988.
Findings Of Fact In May of 1980, the Petitioner, Peterson Outdoor Advertising purchased a sign from Lamar Advertising Company. This sign is located on the east side of State Road 434, approximately 350 feet north of State Road 50 in Orange County, Florida. This sign is a stacked, back to back structure, having two faces which face north and south. The face which is the subject of this proceeding is the south face which faces northbound traffic on State Road 434. This face is visible to traffic on the main-traveled way of State Road 50. When the Petitioner purchased the subject sign from Lamar, it checked the records of Lamar, and the records of the Department of Transportation and the orange County Building and Zoning Department, to ascertain that the sign had all required building permits, electrical permits, county permits and state permits, and that the sign site was a legal location. The sign had all the permits that were required. The relevant document from the Department of Transportation pertaining to the subject sign was a letter dated March 13, 1978, from the Department's district office to Lamar. This letter returned the permit applications that had been submitted by Lamar in February of 1978 seeking permits for the subject sign, for the reason that "your applications do not require a state permit". The parties stipulated that, prior to May of 1984, the personnel of the Department's Fifth District gave advice that signs along non-controlled roads within 660 feet of a federal-aid primary highway did not need a state sign permit. The Petitioner relied on the determination of the Department that the subject sign site did not require a state permit, and purchased the sign from Lamar. In May of 1984 the Fifth District personnel of the Department corrected their erroneous prior interpretation of the statutes and rules they administer, and permits were thereafter required for all signs within 660 feet of a federal-aid primary highway if they were visible from the main-traveled way of the controlled road. On July 1, 1985, the Department's outdoor advertising inspector advised the Petitioner that the south faces of the subject sign required a state permit. These are the faces in question in this proceeding. In compliance with this advice from the Department, the Petitioner filed permit applications for both the north faces and the south faces of the subject sign. The Department returned the applications for the north faces for the reason that a permit was not required. The north faces are not involved in this proceeding. The Department denied the Petitioner's applications for the south faces by memorandum dated October 8, 1985, for the reason that these faces conflicted with permits held by Maxmedia, Inc., in that they were not located more than 1,000 feet from the Maxmedia sign. The Maxmedia permits authorized a sign which was erected at a point 740 feet from the subject sign of the Respondent. The permits held by Maxmedia were issued by the Department on May 8, 1984. Prior to July 1, 1984, the spacing rule for signs on a federal-aid primary highway required 500 feet between signs. On July 1, 1984, this spacing requirement was increased to require 1,000 feet on a federal-aid primary highway. State Road 50 is a federal-aid primary highway, and the area within 660 feet from State Road 50 is a controlled area. The Petitioner's sign 350 feet north of State Road 50 was more than 500 feet from any other structure prior to July 1, 1984. It is not more than 1,000 feet from the Maxmedia signs now, however.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Peterson Outdoor Advertising for a permit on the east side of State Road 434, approximately 350 feet north of State Road 50, facing south, in Orange County, Florida, be GRANTED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 29th day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Thomas Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Emerald applied for an outdoor advertising sign permit for a location approximately 778 feet west of the location for which a permit had previously been issued to Lamar. If the permit previously issued to Lamar were not in spatial conflict with the permit site sought to be used by the Petitioner, the Petitioner's permit could be granted. The Petitioner's proposed site, however, is in statutorily prohibited proximity to Lamar's site, if Lamar's permit is deemed valid. The Department denied Emerald's application because its proposed application was, in the view of the Department, in spacing conflict with the site related to Lamar's permit. The controversy at issue relates to a parcel of land in Destin, Florida, owned by members of the family of Kathleen Jones. Herman Jones owned a portion of the property, and Mildred Castro owned a portion of the property. Kathleen Jones held a life estate to Mildred Castro's portion of the property. Permits were issued to Lamar on June 25, 1981 for a sign at the Jones/Castro site. The sign was erected in August of 1981 and was supported by leases of the real estate involved between Lamar and the Joneses. That sign was maintained continuously until May of 1992. Herman Jones sold his portion of the property in 1992 to Frank J. Roberts and Destin Renaissance, Inc. A survey in conjunction with that sale revealed that the sign was partially on the parcel sold to Roberts and partially on the parcel retained by the Jones family. Lamar, accordingly, moved its sign, since it encroached on the Roberts parcel and executed a release of its lease as to the real estate which Herman Jones had sold to Roberts. Ever since the 1981 erection of the sign, the lease for the site had been between Lamar and Kathleen Jones. It was a written lease and provided for annual renewals. The annual lease payment had been increased in 1985 and again in 1987. On July 27, 1990, the lease was again re-written to increase the annual rental payment. On March 11, 1992, Mr. Roberts sent a letter to the Department's Chipley office stating that he and his corporation had purchased the property from Herman Jones and that he did not have a lease with Lamar. Acting upon that letter, the Department sent a letter to Lamar on April 6, 1993 which stated: This office has received information to the effect that you no longer have permission from the land owner to erect or maintain signs on the South side of US 98, 6.3 miles East of SR 85. The permits numbers are AE678-06 and AE679-06. If, in fact, this information is true and correct the permits issued for these sites are invalid pursuant to Section 479.07(7) Florida Statutes. You are hereby notified that the Department's determination of invalidity will become con- clusive and the subject permit(s) will be revoked unless you elect to challenge this action by requesting an Administrative Hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, within thirty (30) days from receipt of this letter. The request should be addressed to: Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 In the interim, if you can furnish documentary evidence of current permission from the present property owner to refute this information, it may be possible to resolve this matter to mutual satisfaction. Lamar replied to that letter on April 15, 1993 stating: We do have landowner permission for the referenced site as evidenced by our recorded lease of 8/07/90 and our amended lease for the same site dated 12/16/92. In addition the referenced tags were replaced by tags BG796-35 and BG797-35 on 2/15/93. This should be substantial evidence to refute any claim that we do not have landowner permission. Please indicate to me in writing the effect this will have on the need for an administrative hearing. In conjunction with the submittal of that letter of April 15, 1993, Lamar submitted a copy of its recorded lease with Herman Jones dated August 7, 1990 and a copy of its lease with Kathleen Jones dated December 16, 1992. Upon receipt of those documents, the Department concluded that Lamar did have written permission from the landowner to erect a sign at a location for which the permits described in paragraph three above were issued. The Department took no further action to revoke Lamar's permit, and Lamar, therefore, did not apply for an administrative hearing. The Department rejected Emerald's application by letter dated February 9, 1993, and Emerald requested an administrative hearing to contest that initial decision. The rejection of Emerald's permit application was due to the fact that the proposed permit was located less than 1,000 feet (778 feet) from Lamar's permit location. The Department took the position that Lamar's permits were still valid because it had provided satisfactory evidence to the Department that it still had landowner permission for the subject Lamar sign, by presenting a valid lease for the property in question, the Jones/Castro parcel.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Transportation finding that the applications of Emerald Outdoor Advertising, Inc. for outdoor advertising permits in Destin, Florida, be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 1st day of February, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2668T Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, and as constituting a conclusion of law instead of a proposed finding of fact. Respondent Department's Findings of Fact The Respondent, Department of Transportation, adopts the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, Lamar Advertising Company of Ft. Walton Beach, Inc. Thus, those proposed findings of fact are accepted. Proposed finding of fact number nine submitted by the Department, in addition to those submitted by Lamar, is rejected as being unnecessary and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent Lamar's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent, Lamar Advertising Company of Ft. Walton Beach, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted in their entirety as are the facts stipulated to by the parties. COPIES FURNISHED: Martin B. Daniel, Esq. 47 North Third Street Memphis, TN 38103 Robert P. Gaines, Esq. BEGGS & LANE Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, FL 32576 Paul Sexton, Esq. Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esq. General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue What final agency action should the Department of Transportation take on Petitioner's Application for Outdoor Advertising Permit.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The proposed sign that is the subject of the instant controversy (Proposed Sign) is located off of I-95 in the City of Miami (City) at 328-334 Flagler Street on a parcel of land leased by Petitioner from CanPartners Realty (CanPartners Parcel). Section 10.4.5 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.4.5), which has been in effect since 2002, prohibits "new signs of outdoor advertising," except in limited circumstances. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: For the purposes of this section, "Outdoor advertising signs" are signs used in the conduct of the outdoor advertising business; an outdoor advertising business, for the purpose of this section, is defined as the business of receiving or paying money for displaying signs where the sign copy does not pertain to the use of the property, a product sold, or the sale or lease of the property on which the sign is displayed and which does not identify the place of business as purveyor of the merchandise or services advertised on the sign. Except as otherwise provided in Articles 4 and 10 and/or the City Code, or, pursuant to this subsection, no new freestanding "Outdoor advertising signs," as defined above shall be allowed. * * * Notwithstanding any provision of this Zoning Ordinance to the contrary, permits for outdoor advertising signs may be issued pursuant to a Settlement Agreement authorized by Resolution passed by the City Commission, in conjunction with the settlement of related litigation, which expressly authorizes issuance of such permits for said outdoor advertising signs, and then only under the terms and conditions of settlement agreements that result in a net reduction in the party to the settlement's number of outdoor advertising signs located in the City of Miami. . . . The City has entered into "Settlement Agreements" of the type described in the last paragraph of Section 10.4.5 with three sign owners: Carter Pritchett Hodges, Inc., d/b/a Carter Outdoor Advertising, Inc.; Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. d/b/a/ Clear Channel Outdoor; and Intervenor. The City does not have a such a "Settlement Agreement" with Petitioner. The City entered into its Settlement Agreement with Intervenor (City/CBS Settlement Agreement) on July 18, 2008. The City/CBS Settlement Agreement contains the following provisions, among others: 4. Amended Permits. In recognition of CBS's [Intervenor's] removal of the numerous Sign structures and Sign faces described in this Agreement and waiver of just compensation thereof, the City will amend a maximum of 15 existing sign permits (the "Amended Permits") to allow CBS to transfer the permit rights associated with such Signs to new locations with a maximum of two (2) Sign faces each on the terms and conditions set forth below: The City will amend up to a maximum of 15 permits for Signs based on CBS's removal of Signs on a two for one basis: for every two bulletin faces removed, one bulletin face may be erected with an Amended Permit. . . . * * * c. Upon application by CBS showing compliance with the provisions of this paragraph, the City will amend existing Sign permits to allow the transfer of permit rights associated with such Sign or Signs to locations within the same or a less restrictive Zoning District. For all Initial Amended Permits and Amended Permits, CBS will submit FDOT Form 575-010-04 to the City, which will be stamped on the date received. The City's signature on the FDOT Form 575-010-04 shall constitute approval of the location of the sign, and no further approvals from the City shall be required. All Sign permits will be processed "first in, first out," such that no other FDOT Forms may be signed or authorized for a subsequent application which would interfere with the location secured by a previously approved FDOT Form 575-010-04. If an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature, the City's approval will become null and void for that particular application. * * * 19. Miscellaneous. * * * f. Assignments/Binding Nature. This Agreement will be binding upon and will inure to the benefit of the any successor or permitted assigns of the parties hereto. CBS shall have the right of assignment of rights and obligations under this Agreement. However, no attempted assignment by CBS will be valid unless: (1) the assignee shall execute an Agreement to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to accept all of the rights and obligations of CBS under this Agreement; and (2) the assignment is approved in writing by the City Commission, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. The parties acknowledge that the City Commission shall have the right to reject proposed assignment if the assignee does not fully adopt the terms of this Agreement. Any such assignment shall not relieve CBS of its obligations under this Agreement . . . . Any attempted assignment in violation of this Section shall be void. In anticipation of the finalization of the City/CBS Settlement Agreement, Intervenor (through Joseph Little) and Petitioner (through Harkley Thorton) had signed, on May 1, 2008, a Letter of Understanding (LOU) "set[ting] forth the understanding between [Intervenor] and [Petitioner] concerning new sign locations to be utilized in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement between [Intervenor] and the City of Miami." The first numbered paragraph of the LOU explained: CBS is negotiating and attempting to finalize a Settlement Agreement with the City whereby the City will issue 15 amended permits for the construction of new monopole signs with double faces, on expressways located within the City, in return for which CBS will remove 2 existing (or previously removed) sign faces for each new sign face constructed pursuant to an Amended Permit, subject to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement between CBS and the City. Paragraph 2 of the LOU read, in pertinent part, as follows: With respect to the Settlement Agreement with the City, CBS and OM [Petitioner] agree as follows: * * * Under the Settlement Agreement, CBS seeks to obtain 7 Initial Amended Permits (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) one of which is tentatively agreed to be located in Jose Marti Park. Provided there is no term in the Settlement Agreement and the City does not otherwise require CBS to develop a site in the Jose Marti Park, CBS will abandon its proposed Jose Marti Park site and instead accept a site owned by Brickell Land Development Company, located at approximately 300 SW 8th Street (the "Brickell Site"), which is or will be subject to a lease with OM that allows construction and operation of a sign in accordance with the terms of paragraph (2c) below. . . . Provided OM obtains four (4) additional sites for placement of signs pursuant to Amended Permits under the Settlement Agreement, CBS agrees to accept said four sites provided CBS deems each site to be commercially viable. . . . For each of the sites accepted by CBS, CBS will enter into a sub-lease agreement with OM, whereby OM will be the sub-lessor and CBS will be the sub-lessee. . . . Provided that OM produces the Brickell Partners Site and four (4) additionally Commercially Viable Locations, CBS will assign the rights to one (1) of its amended permits under the Settlement Agreement with the City. CBS will assign to OM, and OM will assume, CBS's rights and obligations under the Settlement Agreement to said amended permit except for CBS'[s] obligations pursuant to paragraphs (7a-7d), (8a), and (12a). CBS will provide for the removal of two (2) of its existing sign structures to allow the City to issue the said Amended Permit to OM under the Settlement Agreement. * * * h. CBS'[s] acceptance of the four (4) Commercially Viable Locations referenced in 2c above is expressly conditioned upon the City's approving all locations on Exhibits B and B-1, as amended from time to time, as appropriate removals for Amended Permits in the Settlement Agreement. The penultimate paragraph of the LOU (Paragraph 6) provided as follows: This letter is a Letter of Understanding and binding between the parties and establishes the major business points and conditions of the Parties' agreement for this transaction. However, it is not all inclusive in that it does not contain all the deal points. The Parties agree to expand upon this Letter of Understanding in good faith to prepare a full agreement that can be executed within thirty (30) days of the date of this Letter of Understanding. Such agreement shall be consistent with the terms of this Letter of Understanding and contain such further terms and conditions as are mutually acceptable to the Parties. However, the failure of the Parties to complete a full agreement shall not invalidate the terms of this Letter of Understanding or excuse either Party from performing its obligations and responsibilities as set forth herein. The record is devoid of evidence that Intervenor and Petitioner ever executed a "full agreement," as contemplated by paragraph 6 of the LOU. Intervenor has not executed (pursuant to Paragraph 2e. of the LOU), nor has the City Commission approved (pursuant to Paragraph 19f. of the City/CBS Settlement Agreement), any assignment to Petitioner of Intervenor's rights under the City/CBS Settlement Agreement (although Petitioner believes that it is entitled to such an assignment and has so argued in circuit court litigation in which it is currently involved with Intervenor). On May 2, 2008, Intervenor (through Mr. Little) sent a letter to the City, which read as follows: CBS Outdoor, Inc. [Intervenor] and Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC [Petitioner] have signed a letter of understanding dated May 1, 2008 (The "Agreement"). Please accept this letter as confirmation that in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, CBS Outdoors, Inc. consents to Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC filing Applications for Outdoor Advertising Permits with the Florida Department of Transportation on our behalf. Thereafter, Petitioner submitted to the City's Zoning Administrator, Lourdes Slazyk, (on the version of FDOT Form 575- 010-04 then in effect) Petitioner's Application, requesting that Ms. Slazyk complete and sign the "Local Government Permission" section of the form. Obtaining such "Local Government Permission" is among the prerequisites for receiving an outdoor advertising sign permit from the Department. To erect an outdoor advertising sign in the City after the Department issues a permit, a City building permit (which is "something other than" the "Local Government Permission" referred to above) is required. Ms. Slazyk completed and signed the "Local Government Permission" section of the form, as requested, on May 22, 2008. It was not until almost a year later that Petitioner's Application was submitted to the Department. In completing the form, Ms. Slazyk checked the box indicating that the "outdoor advertising sign identified in this application: [was] in compliance with all duly adopted local ordinances and has been or will be issued the necessary permits." She did so based upon her understanding that the application (which named Petitioner as the applicant) was actually being filed by Petitioner on behalf and with the consent of Intervenor (in accordance with Mr. Little's May 2, 2008, letter) and that Petitioner was "traveling under" the City/CBS Settlement Agreement. Had Intervenor not notified the City that Petitioner was, with Intervenor's consent, "filing Applications for Outdoor Advertising Permits with the Florida Department of Transportation on [Intervenor's] behalf," Ms. Slazyk would not have checked the "compliance" box on the form, given the requirement of Section 10.4.5 of the City's Zoning Ordinance that "permits for outdoor advertising signs" may be issued only "pursuant to a Settlement Agreement" of the type described in Section 10.4.5 (to which Petitioner, unlike Intervenor, was not a party). On August 28, 2008, Intervenor (through Mr. Little) sent a letter to the City, which read as follows: CBS Outdoor, Inc. herewith withdraws its blanket letter of consent dated May 2, 2008 authorizing the City to approve FDOT application forms by Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC on our behalf. A copy of that letter is attached. Henceforth, any FDOT outdoor advertising application form submitted to the City by Outlook must include a specific authorization from CBS Outdoor indicating our approval and authorizing the City to process the FDOT form pursuant to our Settlement Agreement with the City. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. By letter dated October 24, 2008, Intervenor (through its attorney, Glenn Smith, Esquire), advised the City, among other things, that it was "withdraw[ing]" certain applications for outdoor advertising sign permits from the Department, including Petitioner's Application, that either it or Petitioner, on Intervenor's behalf, had previously submitted to the City to obtain the "Local Government Permission" required for such a Department permit. On February 13, 2009, Petitioner (through its attorney, Amanda Quirke, Esquire) sent a letter to Ms. Slazyk, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: As you are aware, under Section 4(c) of the CBS Settlement agreement with the City of Miami, the City's approval of a location becomes null and void if an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature on FDOT Form 575-070-04. In addition, FDOT requires local government approval within 6 months of the application to FDOT. Therefore, Outlook Media is requesting the renewal of the approval of the City of Miami for the following locations: * * * CanPartners Realty * * * Applications are attached for each one of the aforementioned locations. Please stamp the attached applications received today, and advise when we can pick up the stamped received copies for our files. Thank you for your assistance. Intervenor had not authorized Petitioner to make such a request on Intervenor's behalf. Accordingly, (through Mr. Smith) it sent Ms. Quirke the following letter, dated February 18, 2009: As you are aware, this firm represents CBS Outdoor, Inc. ("CBS"). This letter is submitted in response to your February 13, 2009, letter to Lourdes Slazyk at the City of Miami ("City") seeking the approval of the City of the Renewal Applications. CBS has issued no authorization to OM [Petitioner] to submit the Renewal Applications to the City. Therefore, the February 13, 2009 Letter is ultra vires, and OM is directed to withdraw same. If OM desires to obtain CBS's authorization to process the Renewal Applications to the City, OM is directed to submit to CBS a written request for authorization to do so. OM's written request for authorization should address, among other things, the following: CBS's original authorization to OM to submit the FDOT Application to the City was to authorize OM to make submissions on behalf of CBS. Please confirm that any submission of Renewal Application by OM to the City will likewise be on behalf of CBS. Many questions remain relative as the various locations identified in the February 13, 2009, Letter as to whether the locations are "commercially viable." See Attachment A hereto. Please contact the undersigned to schedule a meeting to discuss resolution of these remaining questions. Can Partners Realty: As you know, the City has agreed to approve the Lummis Site. Therefore, the CanPartners Realty site is no longer under consideration and is not to be renewed. OM is hereby specifically directed to take no action to renew the FDOT Application for this site. CBS and its representative are available to discuss the February 13, 2009 Letter, the Renewal Applications and the contents of this letter. If OM desires to discuss same, please contact the undersigned for that purpose. That same day (February 18, 2009), Intervenor (through Mr. Smith) also sent a letter to Ms. Slazyk, in which it stated the following: As you are aware, this firm represents CBS Outdoor, Inc. ("CBS"). This letter is being sent to you on behalf of CBS in response to the February 13, 2009 Letter to you from counsel for OM. In the February 13, 2009 Letter, counsel for OM requests approval by the City of Miami (the "City") of the Renewal Applications under the CBS Settlement Agreement with the City. Please be advised that CBS has not authorized OM to present the Renewal Applications to the City. Therefore, CBS requests that the City take no action on the Renewal Application until the City receives further communications regarding same from CBS. Notwithstanding Intervenor's directive (communicated in its February 18, 2009, letter to Ms. Quirke) that "the CanPartners Realty site . . . not . . . be renewed," on that same date (February 18, 2009), Petitioner (through Ms. Quirke) sent a follow-up letter to Ms. Slazyk, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: In accordance with the request of CBS, please accept this revised request for the renewal of the outdoor advertising applications, originally submitted on February 13, 2009. This revised request is a clarification that Outlook is requesting the renewal of the approval of the following applications on behalf of CBS. As you are aware, under Section 4(c) of the CBS Settlement agreement with the City of Miami, the City's approval of a location becomes null and void if an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature on FDOT Form 575-070-04. In addition, FDOT requires local government approval within 6 months of the application to FDOT. Therefore, Outlook Media of South Florida, on behalf of CBS, is requesting the renewal of the approval of the City of Miami for the following locations: * * * CanPartners Realty * * * Applications are attached for each one of the aforementioned locations. Please stamp the attached applications received today, and advise when we can pick up the stamped, received copies for our files. Thank you for your assistance. The following day, February 19, 2009, Ms. Slazyk wrote back to Ms. Quirke, stating the following: I am in receipt of a faxed letter with back up from your office dated February 13, 2009 and faxed again, as modified, dated February 18, 2009 requesting renewal of certain outdoor advertising signs. I am informing you that, per the attached letters from CBS, and their representatives, the request is not authorized. Petitioner appealed Ms. Slazyk's denial of its renewal request to the City Zoning Board, which upheld the denial. Petitioner thereafter took a further appeal to the City Commission, but Petitioner subsequently withdrew this appeal. It is the City's position "today" (as expressed by Ms. Slazyk at hearing) that Petitioner does not have "Local Government Permission" from the City for the Proposed Sign. On May 4, 2009, almost a year after Ms. Slazyk had signed the "Local Government Permission" section of Petitioner's Application, Petitioner's Application was submitted to the Department.5 The Department contracts with Cardno TBE "to do physical inspections of potential advertising sites" that are the subject of permit applications. For the past 11 years, Matt Barnes has been employed by Cardno TBE as an outdoor advertising inspector responsible for conducting such inspections for the Department. Mr. Barnes was assigned the task of inspecting the CanPartners Parcel (the site where, according to Petitioner's Application, the Proposed Sign would be located). Using two different distance measuring devices,6 Mr. Barnes measured the distance "along the highway [I-95]" from a point directly above the Proposed Sign location (as indicated by a "wooden stake [sticking] about two feet out of the ground" that had been placed there by Petitioner) to the "nearest permitted sign" on the same side of the "highway" (which was to the south and bore tag numbers 412 and 413).7 He "came up with 970 feet both times." On May 19, 2009, the Department issued its Notice of Denied Outdoor Advertising Permit Application, announcing its intention to deny Petitioner's Application because, in pertinent part, the "[Proposed] [S]ign [did] not meet spacing requirements" and the "Local Government Permission" was given "more than six (6) months prior to [the Department's] receipt [of the application]." Petitioner subsequently requested a "formal administrative hearing" on the matter. On May 21, 2009, Intervenor filed an Application for Outdoor Advertising Permit for a sign to be located at 350 Northwest Second Street in the City on a parcel leased to Intervenor by Lummus Park Associates, LLC (Lummus Sign). Because of its proximity to the location of the Proposed Sign, the Lummus Sign would violate minimum spacing requirements and thus not be permittable were Petitioner's Application to be granted. Accordingly, Intervenor's application is being held in "pending status" by the Department until final action is taken on Petitioner's Application.8 On June 17, 2009, Petitioner (through one of its principals, Santiago Echemendia, Esquire) sent a letter to the City, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: This law firm represents Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC ("Outlook"). As you may be aware, Section 14 of SB 360 provides that any local government issued development order or building permit that has an expiration date of September 1, 2008 through January 1, 2012, is extended and renewed for a period of two years following its date of expiration. In accordance with Section 4(c) of the Settlement Agreement between CBS Outdoor, Inc. and the City of Miami (attached), "[i]f an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature, the City's approval will become null and void for that particular application." FDOT also takes the position that the local government permission on FDOT Form 575-070-04 must be issued within 180 days of application to FDOT for an FDOT tag for a sign location. On behalf of Outlook, pursuant to Section 14 of Senate Bill 360, please accept this letter as notification that Outlook is extending the local government permission provided on FDOT Form 575-070-04 for the following locations: * * * Site: CanPartners Folio Number: 01-4137-036-0020 Local Government Permission: 05/22/08 FDOT 180 Day Expiration: 11/18/08 2 Year Extension of FDOT 180 Day Expiration: 11/18/10 Original 280 Day Expiration: 02/26/09 2 Year Extension of City of Miami Expiration: 02/26/11 * * * This 2 year extension notification applies to extend both the FDOT 180 Day Expiration, as well as the 280 Day Expiration set forth in the CBS Settlement Agreement. Therefore, the expiration date for the aforementioned sign locations is extended until the dates listed in the columns entitled "2 Year Extension of FDOT 180 Day Expiration" and "2 Year Extension of City of Miami Expiration." A copy of the FDOT Form 575-070-04 for each of the sign locations is attached for your convenience. . . . On October 5, 2009 (approximately five months after the filing of Petitioner's Application with the Department), the City Commission, on second reading, adopted a resolution (Resolution File Number 09-01061) to enable it to participate in the "pilot program" established by Section 479.07(9)(c), Florida Statutes, "under which the distance between permitted signs on the same side of an interstate highway may be reduced to 1,000 feet if [certain] requirements . . . are met." The resolution, which is still in effect, provides as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION EXPRESSING ITS INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN A PILOT PROGRAM ALLOWING 1,000 FOOT SPACING OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS ALONG EXPRESSWAYS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NOTIFY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE CITY'S INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH PILOT PROGRAM. WHEREAS, Section 10.4.5 of the Miami Zoning Ordinance prohibits new freestanding "Outdoor advertising signs" as defined therein, except for Outdoor advertising signs permitted pursuant to a Settlement Agreement that results in a net reduction in the number of Outdoor advertising signs located in the City of Miami (hereinafter "qualified settlement agreement"); and WHEREAS, by separate Resolutions, the City Commission has authorized the City Manager on behalf of the City of Miami ("City") to enter into qualified settlement agreements with the following sign owners: Carter Pritchett Hodges, Inc. d/b/a Carter Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("Carter"), Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. d/b/a/ Clear Channel Outdoor ("Clear Channel"), and CBS Outdoor, Inc. (hereinafter "CBS"); and WHEREAS, at the time the qualified settlement agreements were approved by the City Commission, Section 479.07(9)(a), F.S. (2008), required new Outdoor advertising signs to be located at least one thousand five hundred feet from any other permitted sign on the same side on an interstate highway (hereinafter "1,500 foot spacing"); and WHEREAS, by House Bill 1021, the Florida Legislature recently amended s. 479.07(9)(c), F.S., in the 2009 Legislative Session, to include the City within a pilot program permitting new Outdoor advertising signs on an interstate highway to be located within one thousand feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of the interstate highway (hereinafter "1,000 foot spacing") under certain enumerated conditions, to wit: "(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1), there is established a pilot program in Orange, Hillsborough, and Osceola Counties, and within the boundaries of the City of Miami, under which the distance between permitted signs on the same side of an interstate highway may be reduced to 1,000 feet if all other requirements of this chapter are met and if: The local government has adopted a plan, program, resolution, ordinance, or other policy encouraging the voluntary removal of signs in a downtown, historic, redevelopment, infill, or other designated area which also provides for a new or replacement sign to be erected on an interstate highway within that jurisdiction if a sign in the designated area is removed; The sign owner and the local government mutually agree to the terms of the removal and replacement; and The local government notifies the department of its intention to allow such removal and replacement as agreed upon pursuant to subparagraph 2." and WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it in the best interest of the City to participate in the pilot program authorized by s. 479.07(9)(c), F.S. (2009), which would permit 1,000 foot spacing for Outdoor advertising signs under the guidelines provided in this Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section. 2. Pursuant to s. 479.07(9)(c)(2), F.S. (2009), the City hereby adopts a pilot program encouraging the voluntary removal of signs within the boundaries of the City, which provides, subject to the conditions stated below, for a new or replacement sign to be erected on an interstate highway, with 1,000 foot spacing, if other Outdoor advertising signs within the boundaries of the City are removed. Section 3. Any sign owner seeking permission to erect an Outdoor advertising sign with 1,000 foot spacing under this pilot program shall meet the following conditions: The sign owner must have a qualified settlement agreement with the City; Any application for a new sign under the pilot program must be in accordance with all terms and conditions of the qualified settlement agreement unless otherwise specified in these conditions; In no event may an application for a new sign under the pilot program exceed the limitation on the number of signs otherwise permitted under the qualified settlement agreement; The duration of the pilot program will not exceed the term of the qualified settlement agreement; No LED Sign may be erected with 1,000 foot spacing unless allowed by an amendment to the sign owner's qualified settlement agreement pursuant to applicable provisions of the Miami Zoning Ordinance; Sign owners must specify in advance of applying for a 1,000 foot spacing application the locations of the signs proposed to be removed or already removed; Sign owners may not be delinquent on any financial obligation to the City as per their qualified settlement agreement; All Outdoor advertising signs erected with 1,000 foot spacing shall be designed with aluminum plating (example attached) or be subject to design review per Manager's designee or designees. Section 4. Should s. 479.07(9)(c), F. S. (2009) be repealed by the Florida Legislature, this pilot program shall automatically expire. Section 5. The City Manager is authorized (1) to notify the Florida Department of Transportation of the City's intention to allow removal and replacement of Outdoor advertising signs under 1,000 foot spacing as provided in this Resolution. Section 6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor. Petitioner has not entered into "a qualified settlement agreement with the City" providing for the removal and replacement of outdoor advertising signs (as required by Section 3(a) of Resolution File Number 09-01061), nor has it at any time, much less "in advance" of having submitted its application (as required by Section 3(f) of Resolution File Number 09-01061), "specif[ied]" what sign(s) would be removed and replaced if the Proposed Sign were to be permitted. In or around November 2009, Petitioner retained the services of Mario Prats, a Florida-licensed surveyor since 1982, to measure how far the Proposed Sign location was to the nearest existing sign directly to the south of this location. When Mr. Prats went to the CanPartners Parcel, he did not see the stake that had been there in May 2009, when Mr. Barnes had done his measurements; nor did he see any other object marking the location of the Proposed Sign. He relied on a "drawing" to "approximate" where the sign would be. Using a "Topcon [measurement] device" and measuring, not along I-95, but the ramp to I-95, Mr. Prats determined that the distance between the Proposed Sign location and the closest sign south of this location was 1,032 feet. The only measurements offered and received into evidence to establish the distance between the Proposed Sign location and the nearest permitted sign (on the same side of the highway) were those taken by Mr. Barnes and Mr. Prats (as discussed above). Neither Mr. Barnes, nor Prats, determined that this distance was 1,500 feet or more.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a final order denying Petitioner's Application for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2010.
The Issue The issue is which outdoor advertising signs should be permitted.
Findings Of Fact Escambia County, at all times material to these proceedings, had, in effect, a local ordinance that regulates the location and construction of outdoor advertising signs. The administrative agency of the county that handles enforcement of the ordinance is the county building inspection department. The policy adopted by that department is that an outdoor advertising company first submits to it a request for approval of a site location. The department inspects the location to see whether the location meets the spacing requirements of the ordinance. The building inspection department does not make an effort to determine at that time whether all other requirements for the issuance of a state permit are met. It issues a letter addressed to the Chipley office of the DOT stating whether it approves the proposed site and delivers that letter to the outdoor advertising company applying for the permit. Lamar submitted an application to the county for a site on the east side of Nine Mile Road (S.R. 297), 250 feet south of U.S. 90A, with a drawing showing the proposed sign location. (See, pg. 4; DOT Exhibit 4). The application was approved by the Escambia County building inspection department on January 6, 1989. On February 24, 1989, Outdoor submitted applications to the Escambia County building inspection department for sites on the east side of S.R. 297 (Nine Mile Road), south of U.S. 90A ("D" on DOT Exhibit 1), and on the south side of U.S. 90A east of S.R. 297 ("C" on DOT Exhibit 1). The locations were checked on February 27, 1989 by an employee of the Escambia County building inspections department, who found the sites to comply with spacing requirements and so indicated on the drawing submitted with the applications. However, that employee's supervisor, John Kimberl, found upon checking the records in the department's office that the application of Lamar for the site, 250 feet south of the intersection of S.R. 297 and U.S. 90A on the east side of S.R. 297, had been approved. This approval created a conflict with the site applied for by Outdoor on the east side of S.R. 297 ("D" on DOT Exhibit 1). Escambia County approved the application for the south side of U.S. 90A east of S.R. 297 ("C" on DOT Exhibit 1). Escambia County issued two letters, one of which stated that the application was approved and the other which stated that the application was denied because it would be in conflict with the spacing requirements because of a prior application. Both letters identified the sign in question using the same address. Outdoor applied for outdoor advertising permits for sites "C" and "D" to DOT by two separate applications on March 31, 1989. Outdoor attached sketches of both sites and a copy of the approval letter from Escambia County to its applications to the DOT representing to the DOT that the appropriate authorities of Escambia County had approved both sites. This may have been inadvertent and due to Outdoor's practice of proceeding only with letters of approval. The applications submitted by Outdoor were otherwise in order. A field inspection by Phillip Brown of the DOT showed that there would be a conflict between the two locations applied for by Outdoor because they were within 660 feet of each other and outdoor advertising signs would be visible to motorists on both highways. The DOT, therefore, offered Outdoor its choice of the two locations. Outdoor chose the location ("D") on the east side of S.R. 297. The DOT then issued Permit Nos. AY436-35 and AY437-35 and gave Outdoor notice that it had denied its other application ("C"). Lamar applied to DOT for an outdoor advertising permit for its location 250 feet south of the intersection on the east side of S.R. 297 initially on January 27, 1989 and again on February 23, 1989. On one occasion, it was rejected because it had the wrong lease attached and on another occasion because the 250-foot distance placed it on property not subject to a valid lease. (See DOT Exhibit 4). After February 23, 1989, this application was amended to 144 feet south of the intersection of S.R. 297 and U.S. 90A and resubmitted with a proper lease. This site was not resubmitted to Escambia County for evaluation, and the original approval letter for the site 250 feet from the intersection was used. (See DOT Exhibit 3). After Lamar's application for permits for the east side of S.R. 297, 144 feet south of U.S. 90A, were rejected as being in conflict with Permit Nos. AY436-35 and AY437-35 issued to Outdoor, Lamar requested an administrative hearing and alleged that Escambia County had not approved the application of Outdoor for the location on the east side of S.R. 297. It is the policy of both the Escambia County building inspection department and the DOT to approve applications for permits in the order in which they were received if the applications are in compliance with the requirements of the statutes, rules and ordinances. It is further the policy of Escambia County not to permit anyone to erect a sign unless they have state permits. In this case, neither Lamar nor Outdoor fully complied with the Escambia County requirements. Outdoor's application for site "D" was not approved by the county and Lamar changed the location of its sign from 250 feet to 144 feet south of the intersection. This new location was not resubmitted for site evaluation. The DOT should have been alerted to the problems of both applications because Outdoor's sketch said the approval was void and the date of the county's letter of approval to Lamar did not change when Lamar's site sketch was changed. Lamar received the approval of Escambia County; but by the time its otherwise valid application was submitted to the DOT, the DOT had issued the permits to Outdoor for the location on the east side of S.R. 297 and denied Lamar because of spacing problems. The DOT would have rejected the application of Outdoor for the location on the east side of S.R. 297 if Outdoor had submitted to it the proper letter from Escambia County.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the DOT revoke the issued Permit Nos. AY436-35 and AY437-35 because the site upon which the signs were to be erected was not properly approved by the county. The DOT properly rejected Lamar's application because its amended site was not approved by the county. DOT's denial of Outdoor's application for signs at site "C" is not at issue in this case and no recommendation is made regarding it. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Officer Hearings 1550 STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 Hearings 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ben C. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esq. General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Robert P. Gaines, Esq. Beggs and Lane P.O. Box 12950 Pensacola, FL 32576-2950 J. Arby Van Slyke, Esq. P.O. Box 13244 Pensacola, FL 32591 Charles G. Gardner, Esq. 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 31st day of January,
Findings Of Fact Foster and Kleiser are the owners of signs located on I-275 at the off- ramp of 54th Avenue, Pinellas-Hillsborough Cloverleaf. These signs are 198 feet from the beginning of the pavement adjacent to the signs and 15 feet from the right of way. The location is in an unincorporated portion of Pinellas County. On December 22, 1972, Ace Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc., the predecessor in interest of Foster and Kleiser as regards this sign, sought and received a permit for the construction of a sign located at "I-75. . .five miles north of St. Petersburg." These permit numbers have been renewed every year until the present with Foster and Kleiser succeeding in interest to Ace Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc. through purchase in 1976. In late 1972, two members of the Department of Transportation, a Mr. Boger (an outdoor advertising inspector now deceased) and Mr. Moran along with Mr. Arthur Hempel, the President of Ace Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc. looked over the area in Pinellas County where the sign was intended to be constructed. At that time Mr. Hempel showed Mr. Boger and Mr. Moran the general area in which the sign would be erected, said area being a strip of approximately 1500 feet fronting I-275 just north of the 54th Avenue North cutoff. No specific site for the sign was stated to Mr. Moran or Mr. Boger and it was pointed out by the DOT personnel that a zoning change would have to be accomplished to permit any sign to be constructed. This rezoning was later made by the County Commission and the land in question was changed from A-1 (agricultural) to CP (Commercial Parkway) in 1973. The sign in question was not erected until on or about June 21, 1977, and is located approximately 198 feet north of the widening for the beginning of the off-ramp at the 54th Avenue North interchange of Interstate 275 in Pinellas County. Prior to the promulgation of Rule 14-10 the Department used as its rule and regulation regarding spacing of signs the Agreement between the Governor of the State of Florida and the United States Department of Transportation, which is now set forth verbatim in Rule 14-10.06 which was adopted in April 1977. The Agreement was enforced by the Department prior to 1976 when it was adopted as a rule. On or about July 27, 1977, the Department cited Respondent Foster and Kleiser for a violation of F.S. 479.02 and Rule 4-10.06 for having erected an outdoor advertising sign within 500 feet of the widening of the pavement at the exit from I-75.
Recommendation For the reasons stated above and in the light of the applicable law, since the sign in question is nonconforming and since currently valid permits have not been issued for the site at which it was erected in June, 1977, it is illegal, cannot be permitted and should be removed. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Rimes, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Horace A. Andrews, Esquire 602 Florida National Bank Building St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AMENDED AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-1430 FOSTER AND KLEISER, Respondent. /
