The Issue Whether a sign owned by Respondent and located on the southbound side of I- 95 north of Pembroke Road in Broward County, Florida, violates Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the notice dated August 8, 1991; and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Chapter 479 regulates outdoor advertising structures along the state highway system. Respondent is the owner of a sign located adjacent to the southbound side of Interstate 95 ("I-95") near Pembroke Road in Broward County, Florida. Respondent maintains the sign on the side of the trailer portion of a so-called 18 wheel tractor-trailer (an "18 wheeler") in a stationary position. No truck or tractor is affixed to the trailer. The sign and 18 wheeler were situated on property owned by Air Stern. Air Stern is an air conditioning company. Petitioner's Outdoor Advertising Inspector (the "inspector") first observed the sign in August, 1991. The sign consisted of a large advertisement affixed to the side of an 18- wheeler which was placed in a stationary location. The message in the advertisement consisted of the words "Father & Son Moving & Storage" and the company's telephone numbers in Broward and Dade counties. The advertising message was clearly visible from I-95. The advertising message was clearly visible from I- 95. A light facing the sign was affixed to the ground and positioned to illuminate the sign on the side of the 18 wheeler at night. An expired 1990 Florida license plate was affixed to the back of the trailer. Grass had grown up around the tires of the trailer and the trailer had been in its same position for several months. The inspector issued a Notice of Violation by physically attaching it to the trailer on August 8, 1991. The inspector determined that the printed advertisement on the trailer's side was an unpermitted sign that violated Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes. The inspector based his determination upon his observation of the trailer on the premises, its position in relation to I- 95, and the type and content of the message printed on the side. Another copy of the Notice of Violation was mailed to Respondent. After more than 30 days had elapsed with no action by Respondent, Petitioner had the first sign removed by Sal's Towing on September 23, 1991. The sign was stored at Petitioner's maintenance facility in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. On November 9, 1991, Respondent paid the towing charge for removal of the sign and then returned the sign to its original location adjacent to I-95 near Pembroke Road in Broward County, Florida. In addition to placing the sign in its original location, Respondent placed a second sign next to the first sign. The second sign was substantially similar to the first sign. The second sign consisted of a large advertisement affixed to the side of an 18- wheeler which was placed in a stationary position with no truck or tractor attached. The message in the advertisement consisted of the words "Father & Son Moving & Storage" and the company's telephone numbers in Broward and Dade counties. The advertising message was clearly visible from I-95. A sign permit has not been applied for by Respondent nor issued by the Department for either of the signs located adjacent to I-95.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding that Respondent shall have ten days from the date of the Final Order to comply with Notice of Violation No. 4-369 by removing the sign or be subject to the cost of removal and imposition of an administrative fine. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of April 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of April 1992.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the Respondent's sign, as described in the Notice of Hearing and in the violation issued herein, was in conformity with the Department requirements, as well as whether the Department is liable for damage to the sign caused by it's removal.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein, the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, was the state agency responsible for regulating the erection and use of advertising signs adjacent to state right-of-way highways in this state. The Respondent, Horseshoe Cove Resort, Inc., was a commercial enterprise and the owner of the sign in question. On August 31, 1989, in the course of his duties as an inspector in the Department's outdoor advertising division, Joseph V. Hanrahan saw the Respondent's sign, which was erected adjacent to and within 1,000 feet of another, permitted, sign, located approximately 25 feet west of 60th Street East, on the northbound side of State Road 70 in Manatee County, Florida. State Road 70 is a primary highway, and the sign, a 1 x 3 foot electrified sign, located on a pole approximately 20 feet above the ground, was visible from the road. This sign was required to be permitted because it is an "off site" sign, ( a sign situated away from the advertised enterprise ). The sign appeared to be in violation of Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and Mr. Hanrahan issued violation No. 1-13-30, which noted that the sign was not properly permitted, and which instructed the owner to remove it within 30 days of the date of the notice of violation. The sign had been erected by Magee Sign Service which was paid by the Respondent to construct and erect it. A county permit had been issued for the sign, but no state sign permit had been obtained. The notice of violation issued by Mr. Hanrahan was mailed to the Respondent and was received by it on September 5, 1989. The sign was not removed within 30 days. Therefore, on June 19, 1990, a contractor, working for the Department, cut the sign down, and by letter dated that same day, the Department advised Respondent the sign had been removed persuant to the violation. It also advised Respondent that under the provisions of Section 479.105, Florida Statutes, Horseshoe Cove was being charged $50.00 as the cost of removal. After the sign was removed, Mr. Williams, Respondent's manager, called Mr. Dunsford, the Department's District Manager, regarding the removal, and in response to that call, Mr. Dunsford advised Mr. Williams in writing how to request a hearing. The violation notice sent to Respondent in August, 1989, states that the owner of the sign had 30 days to remove it. Even though the statute in effect at that time provided for the cost of removal to be borne by the owner, the form did not so state. In early 1990, the form was amended to include a notice regarding cost of removal. In this case, the only notice submitted to Respondent by the Department prior to the sign being removed was the violation notice. According to Mr. Williams, shortly after he received the violation notice in August, 1989, in September, 1989 he wrote to the Department advising them he believed the sign was a part of the contiguous permitted sign. Along with that letter, Mr. Williams enclosed $50.00 to show a good faith effort to correct the problem. This $50.00 was subsequently returned by the Department. Upon the advice of Mr. Hanrahan, Williams contacted Magee Sign Service to see if a bracket could be fashioned to affix the offending sign to the adjacent billboard. Magee advised him that county regulations prohibited that. This is true. Williams then called Mr. Hanrahan to see if he would contact Mr. Prettyman, an official in the county planning office who permitted signs, to see if some arrangement could be made to preserve the sign, but in the interim, it was removed by the Department. All during this time, Mr. Williams was a member of the County Planning Commission and saw Prettyman at most meetings. He did not ever discuss the sign problem with him, however, claiming the meetings "offered little or no time for other business." A post - meeting discussion, or contacts at other times, were not addressed. Hanrahan admits to being asked by Williams to speak with Prettyman and claims he did so. He also claims that Prettyman declined to issue the required permit. Hanrahan cannot recall whether he advised Williams of this or not, but it appears he did not. Williams claims he expected to hear back from Hanrahan on the matter, and now claims that had Hanrahan told him timely of Prettyman's refusal, he would have removed the sign then without destroying it. He also claims not to have known the state would hire a contractor to remove it or that there would be a cost involved. The cost is provided for by statute, however. His claims of lack of knowledge are not impressive and do not justify Respondent's inaction. Notwithstanding that the contractor is required to remove the sign below ground surface, to fill the hole remaining, and to clean the area, according to Mr. Williams, the metal support pole was cut 1 1/2 inches above the ground and the internal electrical wires were cut at the junction box leaving live electrical wires open. When Mr. Williams saw the pole stub, he did not notify the Department but instead, had his own maintenance people correct the problem. Even after the notice of violation, Respondent, though trying to arrange for the sign to be made "legal" at no time applied for a state permit for the offending sign. Williams claims that Magee did apply for a permit but was denied, but no independent evidence to that effect was presented.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the removal of the offending sign in question, assessing a $50.00 fee against Respondent for removal costs, and denying Respondent reimbursement for the cost of the destroyed sign. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1991. Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 E. H. Williams Horseshoe Cove Resort, Inc. 5100 69th Street East Bradenton, Florida 34203 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0468 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Petitioner submitted Request for Admissions to Respondent Waller on 17 August 1982, and no response thereto was received from Waller (Exhibit 1). Pursuant to Rule 1.370(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, these requests are deemed admitted. Included therein are the following: The sign in question is an outdoor advertising sign visible to vehicular traffic on I-4 and located within 660 feet of the I-4. The sign has never been issued a permit by Petitioner. The sign was located outside the corporate limits of a city or town at the time it was erected. The sign is not located in a commercial or industrial zoned area or in a commercial or industrial unzoned area. The structure is owned by Respondent Waller. Exhibit 2, a computer printout from the office of the Secretary of the State of Florida, shows Country Village Flea Market, Inc., to have been incorporated July 15, 1980, with all directors having the surname of Waller, and Ferris Waller as president and registered agent. The address of the corporation is the same as the address to which the Notice of Alleged Violation was sent. The area in which this sign is located is zoned R-1A, which is single- family residential, and is located inside the city limits of Plant City, Florida.
The Issue Whether subject sign is in violation of state and federal law for the reason that no permit was secured at time of erection of subject sign.
Findings Of Fact Respondent proceeded to erect subject sign prior to January 29, 1975, and continued such erection after January 29, 1975, the date a Notice of Outdoor Advertising Violation was served on Respondent Corporation by the District Sign Inspector. Said notice of violation notified Respondent that Respondent Corporation was in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes or Section 335.13, Florida statutes for the reason that no permit had been secured and that the erection of said sign was in violation of the specific requirement of Chapter 479, Florida statutes inasmuch as subject sign was approximately 250' from an existing sign. Respondent continued to erect subject sign despite objections from the Florida Department of Transportation. On the date of the hearing the Respondent testified that as of that date an application had been made and permit had been approved. The sign coordinator testified that the sign which had been permitted and which was so spaced to prohibit the building of Respondent's sign had been removed after the Notice of Hearing had been set. The complainant contended that Respondent erected subject sign without first applying for a permit; that after Notice of Violation Respondent disregarded the notice and the law and continued to build subject sign; that not until notice of this hearing was received did Respondent "buy out" the offending sign which prohibited the issuance of permits. The Respondent did not deny that no permit was issued before erection of subject sign but contends that permits have now been issued.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns a series of light poles that were erected at Respondent's expense at various locations within the city limits of the City of West Miami (the "City") pursuant to a written contract between Respondent and the City (the "contract"). Signs were affixed to eight light poles with the permission of the City pursuant to the contract. Respondent paid for the cost of construction and installation of the light poles. Respondent also pays operating costs for the light poles, including utility and insurance costs. The sign on each light pole is self illuminating. Respondent pays the City a percentage of advertising revenues derived from signs placed on the light poles. Revenue from advertising is derived from signs attached to eight of the light poles erected by Respondent. 1/ Advertising revenues from signs to be affixed on all of the light poles erected by Respondent were projected by Respondent and the City in an amount sufficient to pay for the capital and operating costs of the light poles and provide both the City and Respondent with additional revenue. The five signs at issue in this proceeding are not permanent. Each sign consists of a metal frame approximately three feet high and two feet wide. Each metal frame is attached to the light pole by bolts and clamps. Advertising is provided on heavy duty paper covered with a clear, mylar plastic panel. Advertising can be easily changed by sliding out an old advertising panel and inserting a new advertising panel. The metal frame can be detached from the light pole in a matter of minutes by removing the bolts and clamps. The five signs at issue in this proceeding are attached to light poles erected on State Road 90 which is also U.S. 41, the Tamiami Trail, and Calle Ocho (the "Tamiami Trail"). 2/ The signs are located within 660 feet of the Tamiami Trail where it intersects Southwest 67th Avenue and Ludlam Road and where it intersects Southwest 57th Avenue and Red Road. The portion of the Tamiami Trail on which the five signs are located is designated by Petitioner as part of the federal-aid primary highway system. Some of the eight signs erected by Respondent are within a thousand feet of other permitted signs. The five signs at issue in this proceeding were erected without first obtaining permits from Petitioner. Each sign and sign message is visible from Tamiami Trail. Each sign advertises business activities conducted at locations other than those where the signs are located. None of the five signs at issue in this proceeding are official road signs or traffic control devices. The signs do not: indicate points of historical interest; advertise the sale or lease of the property upon which they are located; advertise only the name or nature of the business being conducted, or products, goods, or services that are sold, supplied, or distributed upon or in the premises upon which the signs are located. The signs were not in place prior to July 3, 1986. The signs are not otherwise within an area where signs are permitted by law. Approximately three or four years ago, Eric Nadel, Respondent's president and founder, conferred on a number of occasions with Mr. William Kenney who is the Outdoor Advertising Coordinator for Petitioner's District 6. Mr. Nadel advised Mr. Kenney of the plan to put signs on light poles. Mr. Kenney told Mr. Nadel " . . . over and over again . . . " which locations on state roads in Dade County would require sign permits and which locations would not require sign permits. Mr. Kenney provided Mr. Nadel with Petitioner's log of the state highway system in District 6, including Dade and Monroe counties. The log identified those roads designated by Petitioner as interstate highways ("FAI"), federal-aid urban highways ("FAU"), and federal-aid primary highways ("FAP"). Mr. Kenney also provided Mr. Nadel with copies of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. 3/ The light poles and five signs at issue in this proceeding were erected and installed by Respondent subsequent to the time Mr. Nadel conferred with Mr. Kenney. Mr. Nadel was personally responsible for the erection of the light poles and signs. The signs do not carry sign permits and were erected without first obtaining sign permits. After the lights and signs were installed, Mr. Nadel received a Notice to Show Cause for each of the five signs at issue in this proceeding. After a formal hearing was requested in this proceeding, Mr. Nadel met with representatives of the Petitioner including, George Fisher, Enforcement Supervisor, Stanley M. Cann, Director of Operations, and Barbara Hobbs, attorney. Mr. Nadel was accompanied by Mr. Alex Chavez, a commissioner for the City during the period when the contract was negotiated and executed between the City and Respondent. Discussions at the meeting between the parties included the potential violation of Chapter 86-308, Laws of Florida, which designates Calle Ocho as an historic roadway (the "Calle Ocho Statute"). 4/ An agreement of the parties was reached as a result of the meeting between Mr. Nadel and representatives of the Respondent. The agreement was memorialized in a letter dated March 13, 1990, from Mr. Fisher to Mr. Nadel. Petitioner agreed to stay further removal action against existing unpermitted signs for 90 days from March 13, 1990. Respondent agreed not to install any additional signs until proper permits are issued for the existing unpermitted signs. Petitioner agreed to "process" Respondent's applications for sign permits if Respondent secured approval from the Division of Archives for all signs in the area covered by the Calle Ocho Statute. Approval of any applications for sign permits was expressly conditioned upon Respondent's compliance with the current provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. In the event Respondent was unable to secure approval from the Division of Archives for all signs in the area covered by the Calle Ocho Statute "and" comply with Petitioner's requirements for obtaining valid permits, Petitioner would remove the signs and bill Respondent for the costs incurred. The agreement of the parties expressly provided that the terms of the agreement did not waive any legal rights of the parties. The Division of Archives determined that it had no jurisdiction over any of the signs at issue in this proceeding. After several preliminary letters, the Division of Archives notified Mr. Nadel of its determination by letter dated April 25, 1990.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's notices of violation be upheld, and the five signs at issue in this proceeding be removed in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of March, 1991. DANIEL MANRY 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 25th day of March, 1991.
The Issue This proceeding involves permits for outdoor advertising issued by the Florida Department of Transportation. The issue for determination is whether those permits should be revoked for failure to have the property owner's permission to maintain a sign at the subject location.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, POA Acquisition, Inc. (POA), is an outdoor advertising company maintaining an office in Orlando, Florida. On or about June 7, 1985, sign permits #AQ 195-35 and AQ 196-35 were issued by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) to Iverson, Inc., for the two faces of a sign located near the highway intersection of State Road 438 and U.S. 441 in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. The site for the sign was leased from the owners by Iverson, for 5 years effective August 1, 1985, at an annual rate of $1,800.00. The lease provided for automatic renewals of successive 5-year terms unless written notice to terminate was given by either party ninety (90) days prior to the end of the term. The lease also provided for termination by the lessor with ninety (90) days notice if the lessor required use of the property for another purpose. (Petitioners Exhibit #4) At some point, Iverson assigned its lease and transferred the permits to another company, Don Bell Industries, Inc. (Don Bell) The lessors sold the property to Bernard Kaplan. Patricia Lavelle became the agent for the owner, Bernard Kaplan. The new owner had development plans for the property and began negotiating a new lease with Don Bell in July 1989. Offers and counter-offers were made, but no new lease was signed. On July 2, 1990, Patricia Lavelle sent a letter to Don Bell stating that the lease had expired as of June 30, 1990, and the billboards needed to be removed. Unknown to Patricia Lavelle, Don Bell had transferred its lease to POA in November 1989. Ms. Lavelle found out about the transfer the day she wrote to Don Bell, and she sent POA a copy of the letter. Ms. Lavelle also sent a notice to Peter Wright, DOT, informing him that the lease with Don Bell was terminated and asking that the permits be revoked and reissued to the new leasee, National Advertising Company. POA sent Ms. Lavelle a check for $1,440 (deducting 20% for federal tax), dated July 11, 1990. She held the check and never deposited it. Ms. Lavelle contends that no lease exists between the owner and POA, and POA does not have the owner's permission to maintain its billboard on the premises. She contends that the lease expired in June 1990, when the Don Bell lease expired. The assignment of lease from Bell to POA, which was never sent to Ms. Lavelle or Bernard Kaplan, indicates that the lease term is 6/26/85 to 6/26/90. POA contends that a five year renewal period commenced in July 1990, as the lessor did not give 90 days advance notice, as provided in the lease document. However, no evidence was presented to refute Ms. Lavelle's statement that the notice was given to Don Bell when a letter dated July 7, 1989, was sent from P.A. Lavelle to Russ Adams, Manager of Don Bell & Company, stating that the land was "under a development project", and someone from the company needed to negotiate a new lease. (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Ms. Lavelle's testimony and the July 7th letter establish that POA does not have the owner's permission to maintain a sign at the subject site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the DOT issue a Final Order revoking permit numbers AQ 195-35/AQ 196- 35. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 9th day of A1pril, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr. Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. #58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Jay Trent, Real Estate Manager POA Acquisition, Inc. P.O. Box 617617 Orlando, FL 32861 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Dept. of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Dept. of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 MARY CLARK 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 9th day of April, 1991.
The Issue Whether the subject signs violate the state and federal laws and should be removed; Whether Respondent has violated Section 479.07(1)(4)(6) and Section 479.11(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact By letter from Benjamin W. Redding, Esquire, the Hearing Officer was advised that no appearance would be made on behalf of Commander Realty, Inc. and notice was given that Respondent waived any objections to conduct the hearing at the place other than Chipley or in a summary manner. The following described sign is located in an unzoned area outside the city limits in an essentially rural area. The location is on a federal aid highway, U.S. 98. The location is on the corner of U.S. 98 and East Eleventh Street. The copy is Town and Country Lake Estates, a double-faced sign. This sign sets two feet on the road right of way, has never been permitted, no application was made before its erection sometime during the fall of 1975.
Findings Of Fact By notice of alleged violation dated January 19, 1979, the Department charged that the Respondent, Chevron, U.S.A., installed a sign on 1-4, 23.86 miles east of U.S. 301, without a permit in violation of Rule 14-10.04, Florida Administrative Code. The notice also alleged that the sign was too close to an off ramp of 1-4, in violation of Title 23, Section 13, U.S. Code Para. 2(B). The parties stipulated that the sign is located along 1-4, a part of the Federal Interstate Highway Systems which was open to vehicular traffic in 1959-1960 and that the sign is located in the unincorporated area of Polk County. On or about October 22, 1969, the Respondent contracted with Pickett and Associates, of Tampa1 Florida, a general contractor, to construct a complete operating service station at 1-4 and SR 35-A. Included in the contract price was the cost of constructing the sign in question. An engineer for Chevron, J. L. Edgar, requested on June 4, 1969, that Pickett and Associates proceed to obtain all permits prior to construction. Due to no direct fault of the Respondent, the necessary permits to install the sign were never obtained from the Department. This fact was discovered when a sign inspector noticed the sign to be in poor condition and in need of repair. The contractor who erected the sign was contacted regarding the permits but all records relating to this particular job have been discarded. Chevron was unaware that the sign was never permitted until the notice was issued by the Department. The sign is located within five hundred (500) feet of the exit ramp off 1-4 to Kathleen Road (SR 35-A) , as measured from the spot where the road widens to the exit. No evidence was submitted to show that the sign was on the same property of the station or within one hundred (100) feet thereof.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's sign be found in violation of Rule 14- 10.06(1)(b)(2)(b) , Florida Administrative Code and Section 479.07, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of August, 1980. in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. A. Scott Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. 3908 10th Avenue Tampa, Florida 33605 Charles Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Should certain outdoor advertising signs owned by Respondent, Lamar East Florida (Lamar) be removed as a result of notices of violations brought by Petitioner, Department of Transportation (the Department) against Lamar?
Findings Of Fact Lamar is licensed pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, to conduct the business of outdoor advertising. The Department regulates the outdoor advertising business in accordance with that law. In 1964, outdoor advertising signs that are the subject of the proceeding were constructed along US Highway 1 in Volusia County, Florida. Subsequently, in 1971, outdoor advertising signs which are the subject of the proceeding were constructed along Interstate 95 in Volusia County, Florida. The signs in both places are subject to permits issued by the Department to Lamar. The signs were legally erected but became nonconforming based upon their spacing in relation to other permitted outdoor advertising signs. The Lamar signs and their spacing are described as follows: Permit No. BN674-55, East of Interstate 95, 3.183 miles north of NEB790079 Hull Road is 881 feet from a permitted sign to the north. Permit No. BJ689-55, East of Interstate 95, 2.588 miles north of NEB790079 Hull Road is 343 feet from a permitted sign to the north. Permit No. BN681-55, East of US Highway 1, 0.088 miles north of Pine Tree Drive is 216 feet from a sign under Permit No. BU855. Permit No. BN682-55, East of US Highway 1, 0.027 miles north of Hull Road is within 332 feet of a permitted sign to the north. Permit No. BV232-55, East of US Highway 1, 0.0129 miles north of Pine Tree Drive is 216 feet from a permitted sign to the north. Each of the Lamar signs is within 660 feet of the first named highway or interstate, within Volusia County, Florida. Lamar owns and maintains the outdoor advertising signs that have been identified. On June 19, 1998, under dry weather conditions, a series of lightening strikes started a wildfire in a remote swampy area. Before the fire ended in July of 1998 its dimensions were extensive. The wildfire burned in Volusia and Flagler counties, Florida, west of Daytona Beach and Ormond Beach, Florida, and extending into the city of Ormond Beach. Eventually, it consumed the Lamar signs that have been described to the extent that the up-right wooden supports of each of the signs were substantially burned. This destruction took place on July 1, 1998. The degree of destruction was within the definition of "destroyed" set out in Rule 14- 10.007(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Before their destruction the signs had been lawfully permitted by the Department. Interstate 95 and US Highway 1 had been closed to the public before the Lamar signs were "destroyed." The attempt by Lamar to gain access to the outdoor advertising signs was not successful because of the road closures by government authorities. Following their destruction, Lamar re-erected the structures by reinstalling the signs at the same locations using substantially the same type of materials as had been previously found in the structures being replaced. None of the materials used to re-erect the signs were part of the sign structures immediately before the destruction of the original signs by the wildfire. When re-erected the signs were the same size, shape, and height of the destroyed signs. Lamar does not own the property where the signs are located. Lamar operates pursuant to agreements with property owners by which Lamar has the right to maintain the signs. Upon the expiration or termination of the agreements with the property owners, Lamar may remove all of its sign materials from the properties and absent an agreement no longer maintain the signs. Lamar has no other business interest in the properties where the signs are located. The purpose of the outdoor advertising signs is to lease advertising space to third parties for advertising purposes which generates income to Lamar. Each outdoor advertising sign in question provides that income. The suppression effort directed to the fire was limited due to the remoteness of the swampy area in which the fire originated and a paucity of manpower and equipment. As a consequence, the firefighting effort did not begin in earnest until June 20 or 21, 1998. The fire was combated through efforts of the Florida Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry and other national, state, and local firefighting organizations. The fuel for the fire, that is, bushes and trees, was dry. The weather conditions were highlighted by low relative humidity and a very high dispersion index. The smoke from the fire rose in the atmosphere and carried its embers from the west to the east. The fire came out of the Hull Cypress Swamp and the embers picked up by the wind crossed fire control lines and continued to spread to the east. Eventually, the two main fingers of the fire burned together on July 2, 1998. Before it was suppressed the fire, known as the Rodeo Road Fire, would consume 61,500 acres. The progress of the fire is depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, a map of the area in question, to include the area in which the subject signs were located. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 portrays the location of the signs more precisely. More specifically, the conditions in the swamp were extremely dry at the time the fire commenced as evidenced by the available dry fuel load in the swamp, which fuel load would normally be wet. Under wet conditions the fire would either not have burned or would have meandered. Given the dry conditions in the swamp in June 1998, there was a lot more fuel available to burn. East of the swamp the land that was burned was constituted of pastures, range land, and forest lands. Some areas had been subjected to prescribed burning to control available fuel loads in an incidence of wildfire but other areas had not been subjected to prescribed burning before the wildfire. Had property owners in the area affected by the wildfire conducted prescribed burning before that event it would have reduced the fuel load available for incineration. In some places in the advance of the wildfire the fuel loads were heavy, in other places less so, in that the property was constituted of pastures. In addressing the fire, the firefighters' priorities, in turn, included their safety; the safety of the public; the protection of property, to include structures; and finally the protection of resources such as timberland. By their efforts in addressing this incident the firefighters managed to save homes and businesses by creating defensible space around those structures against the on-set of the fire. The area of defensible space necessary is at least 30 feet, which reduces the chance of direct flame impact on the structure. Another technique that was employed to address the consequences of the wildfire was backfiring or imposition of the "black line concept." This is a nationally recognized firefighting technique. It is used when a fire is burning in an area that is inaccessible or has a potential to overrun a fire control line in a setting in which unburned fuel exists between the main fire and the control line. The unburned material is then deliberately burned before the main fire reaches that area to protect the control line from the main fire. The backfire is best employed when the weather conditions are conducive to its use, including wind direction and levels of humidity. During the time that the Rodeo Road Fire took place the use of backfires was not especially successful due to the dryness of the fuels. In the course of the Rodeo Road Fire, Georgia Pacific now known as the Timber Company, used a backfire to protect its property against the northward and eastward progress of the wildfire. The backfire was lit on June 28, 1999. The backfire by the Timber Company did not control the wildfire. It was successful on the west flank of the wildfire but unavailing on the east flank where the backfire by the Timber Company intersected the wildfire and the wildfire continued its eastward progress which had already begun. The setting of the backfire by the Temper Company was an appropriate tactic. Its outcome was inconsequential when considering the progress of the wildfire and its eventual destruction of the signs. Nor is the decision of a California fire crew to use a backfire to protect itself and its equipment found to have meaningful significance in promoting the forward progress of the wildfire to the east where the wildfire would destroy the signs. The backfire lit by the fire crew occurred on July 1, 1998. Backfiring to secure safety is an approved tactic for firefighters in making an independent judgment to protect their lives.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which revokes the sign permits that have been described and requires the removal of those signs within 30 days of the entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 21st day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Burdick, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Aileen M. Reilly, Esquire Livingston & Reilly, P.A. Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Attention: James C. Myers, Clerk Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
