Findings Of Fact The Respondent, E. A. Hancock Advertising, Inc., erected two double face outdoor advertising signs in June, 1975, in an unincorporated part of Broward County, Florida, without first obtaining a permit from the Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation. Two of the signs face north and two signs face south. Each sign structure has two faces. After erection the Respondents applied for permits but permits were refused by Petitioner and violation notices dated October 22, 1975, were sent to Respondents indicating that Respondent was in violation of the outdoor advertising laws by erecting signs without permits and erecting "two separate signs erected illegally (which] can be seen from 1-95." After much correspondence between the parties, the matter was set-for hearing November 9, 1976, was thereafter continued and finally heard on July 12, 1977, more than two years after the erection of the signs. The signs were constructed on a county secondary road known as Ravenwood Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and more definitely located as "south from 3497 Ravenwood Road. The road is one lane in each direction and is the type of road usually known as a service road. The billboard signs are elevated to a height of approximately 25 feet from the ground to the top of the sign and sit back about 15 feet from the secondary road. Although the signs can easily be read by travelers on Ravenwood Road, signs designed primarily to serve this two lane road would as a practical matter have been much smaller and much closer to the ground and the message would have had smaller letters. The signs are a "visual overkill" for travelers on Ravenwood Road. See "Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1" and the Polaroid pictures taken from Ravenwood Road. The signs are elevated to less than 25 feet above 1-95. One sign is about 190 feet from the south lane of the interstate highway and the other about 191 feet from the south lane of the highway. Both signs are on the west side of the interstate highway. The two sign structures are approximately 300 feet apart. One sign is approximately 500 feet from an existing sign and the other is approximately 850 feet from an existing sign. The large size lettering on the large signs are clearly visible to the motoring public on interstate highway 1-95. Three of the four signs are visible and can easily be read by motorists going either north or south on the interstate highway. Evidence is unclear as to whether one side of one of the double space signs is clearly visible from the interstate highway. Copy on the signs is changed from time to time, but at the time the pictures entered into evidence were taken from the interstate highway, copy read, "WHITEHALL PRESTIGE LIQUORS A GREAT VODKA" and "HOLSUM Baked just right for you." The advertising is large and can be read in the Polaroid snapshots that were taken by Petitioner while on the interstate highway and entered in the record as "Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1." Application for sign permits was made June 16, 1975 to the Broward County Planning, Building and Zoning Department. Permits were issued by the county and were affixed to the signs. The Hearing Officer further finds: The subject signs were constructed primarily to be read by the public traveling on the interstate highway. The size of the signs, the size of the lettering, the elevation of the signs and the angle of the signs provide insurance that messages can be easily read by those traveling on the interstate. The traffic on the interstate is much heavier than traffic on Ravenwood Road. The Petitioner contends that the Respondent is in violation of outdoor advertising laws: No permit was applied for or granted before the outdoor advertising signs were constructed by Respondent. The signs were constructed primarily to be read by the public traveling on 1-95, an interstate highway. The setback of tho Respondent's signs is less than 660 feet from the interstate highway. The signs should be removed as violating the state statutes as well as the federal code laws, rules and regulations contained in the "Highway Beautification Act." Broward County has not submitted to the administrator of the state evidence that it has established effective control with regard to size, spacing, height and lighting requirements contrary to the agreement of the Governor authorized by Section 479.02. Broward County does not enforce any outdoor advertising requirements even if it could be shown the zoning was in compliance with Title 1 of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and Title 23, U.S. Code as required by Section 479.02 and the agreement executed pursuant thereto. Respondent contends that: It secured permits from Broward County and attached them to the subject signs. Broward County had zoned the area M-3 and that it is a commercial zone. The signs were erected primarily to be read by the public traveling on Ravenwood Road. There are no spacing requirements of a thousand feet between advertising signs under the Florida law and that even if there were they had not been formerly charged with violating spacing requirements. Public Law 89-285, passed by the 89th Congress of the United States on October 22, 1965, allowed the states and the federal government to agree to set-back for signs nearer than 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right of way in areas zomed industrial or commercial. The agreement between the Governor and the federal government made provisions for local governments to regulate size, lighting and spacing requirements. That in fact the ratification of the Governor's Agreenent under Section 479.02 is not the enactment of a law. The Petitioner has in fact issued permits to others after signs have been constructed and should issue a permit for subject signs to Respondent. At the subject hearing the attorneys for both parties indicated that they desired to submit a Memorandum of Law but neither party submitted a memorandum.
Recommendation Require the Respondent to remove its signs within thirty (30) days from the date of the Final Order. Invoke the penalties of Section 479.18 for violation of Chapter 479. The Department of Transportation has ample enforcement power to remove the signs under Section 479.02 aside from the agreement: Brazil v. Division of Administration, 347 So.2d 755. See also Section 335.13 which states in part: "(1) No person shall erect any billboard or advertisement adjacent to the right-of-way of the state highway system, outside the corporate limits of any city or town, except as provided for in chapter 479." DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert D. Korner, Esquire 4790 Tamiami Trail W. 8th Street Coral Gables, Florida 33134
The Issue With respect to DOAH Case No. 99-3345T, whether the Respondent must remove the double-faced outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to I-95, on the west side of the highway, 1.25 miles south of North Lake Boulevard, in Palm Beach County, Florida, for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Violation - Illegally Erected Sign, dated March 31, 1999. With respect to DOAH Case No. 99-3346T, whether the Respondent's permits for a double-faced outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to I-95, on the west side of the highway, 1.25 miles south of North Lake Boulevard, in Palm Beach County, Florida, and bearing permit numbers AZ346-35 and AZ347-35, should be revoked for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Violation - Maintenance of Nonconforming Signs dated March 31, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for, among other things, issuing permits and regulating outdoor advertising structures and signs along the state highway system, the interstate system, and the federal-aid primary system. Section 479.02, Florida Statutes (1999). National Advertising 2/ is the owner of a double- faced outdoor advertising sign located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The sign is located on the west side of Interstate 95, 1.25 miles south of North Lake Boulevard. At the time the structure was erected, the sign faces were visible to both southbound and northbound traffic of Interstate 95. At the times material to this proceeding, the sign at issue was a non- conforming sign. At the times material to this proceeding, the sign structure consisted of seven wooden poles placed in the ground and secured by concrete. Two metal heads, the sign faces themselves, were attached to the poles, one facing north and one facing south. The structure also included a metal catwalk providing access to the sign faces, as well as miscellaneous trim and equipment. At some time prior to the incidents giving rise to these proceedings, a sound wall was erected by the Department along Interstate 95, which blocked visibility of the National Advertising sign face by northbound traffic. In March 1999, National Advertising determined that the existing wooden poles supporting the sign heads were deteriorating and needed to be replaced. In addition, National Advertising decided to raise the height-above-ground-level ("HAGL") of the sign to maintain the same visibility of the sign face by the northbound traffic as that which existed before the sound wall was erected. Consequently, National Advertising contracted with a company to relocate the poles and transfer the existing sign faces and attached equipment to the new poles. Holes were dug approximately five feet from the original wooden poles, and new wooden poles were set in these holes. A crane lifted the sign faces and the attached trim and equipment and supported them while the old wooden poles were cut down slightly above ground level. The crane then moved the sign faces and the attached trim and equipment to the new poles, and the assemblage was bolted to the new wooden poles. The original wooden poles supporting the sign heads were approximately 12-to-13 inches in diameter, and the HAGL of the original sign faces was approximately 24 feet. The new wooden poles were approximately 20-to-22 inches in diameter, and the HAGL of the sign faces was raised to approximately 50 feet. The structure of the sign was not altered, and the materials used in the sign faces were not altered. The poles supporting the sign faces can be changed as part of the routine maintenance of an outdoor advertising sign, as long as the new posts are of the same material and configuration; the replacement of deteriorating poles is standard industry practice and is required to maintain the safety of the sign. The sign must, however, stay in the same relative location on the ground as the old sign. It is standard industry practice to place new supporting poles a few feet away from the exact location of the old supporting poles in order to provide a firm foundation for the new poles. The Department uses the term "remove" in its notices of violation as a "general term" meaning "[t]o move [a sign] away from the site, to move it any distance away from where it was installed previously." 3/ Nonetheless, the charges in the Notices of Violation issued in these cases were based on the Department's mistaken conclusion that National Advertising "cut down the entire sign, discarded it and built an entire new sign in its place." 4/ The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the permitted outdoor advertising sign was removed from its original location and re-erected. Because it has not established with the requisite degree of certainty that the sign was re-erected, the Department cannot sustain its charge that the outdoor advertising sign at issue herein was erected without a permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Violation - Illegally Erected Sign in DOAH Case No. 99-3345T and dismissing the Notice of Violation - Maintenance of Nonconforming Signs in DOAH Case No. 99-3346T. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 18th day of September, 2000.
The Issue Whether Respondent has violated Section 479.07(1)(4)(6) and 479.11(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent is a corporation and did not have counsel present at the hearing. In the light of Rule 14-6.03, Florida Administrative Code, which provides that all entities created by law shall be represented by counsels Mr. Miller was not permitted to represent the corporation at this hearings however, he was advised that if he so desired he could testify as a witness. He elected to do so during the proceedings. At the hearing Petitioner's representative moved to withdraw the allegation of a violation with regard to Respondent's sign on Interstate Highway I-10 located 1.8 miles east of State Road 81 on the north side. The amendment of the petition was granted.
Findings Of Fact The sign in question is on Interstate Highway I-10, .9 miles east of State Road 81 on the north side, and 18 feet from the I-10 right-of-way fence which in turn is located within 6 inches of the right-of-way. The text of the sign provides directions to a Fina gasoline station. The outdoor advertising inspector of District III has observed Mr. Miller at this station in the past. The inspector established the precise location of the sign and took a photograph thereof on December 10, 1975. The sign is not in a zoned or unzoned commercial or industrial area as evidenced by observation of the inspector and a sketch of the area prepared by him together with a general highway map of the Florida State Road Department establishes that the sign is not located within the city limits of Ponce de Leon, Florida, or any other incorporated city or town. No state permit tag issued by the Department of Transportation was affixed to the sign at the time of its inspection on December 10, 1975. Although Respondent has previously submitted an application for a permit it was not issued because the sign was in violation of existing law and regulations as determined by the Department (Testimony of Williams, Jordan; Exhibits 1, 2 & 3) Respondent's service station is south of Interstate Highway I-10 and at the time it was leased the land owner informed the Respondent's representative that its location was within the city limits of Ponce de Leon. In like manner, Respondent learned by hearsay that the area that he leased for his sign was also in the city limits. Respondent was under the impression that the problem was that his sign was located in an unzoned area. Mr. Miller testified that Exhibit 1 accurately depicted his sign and that Exhibit 2, its location and conceded that he had applied for a permit which was denied and that he presently did not have a permit for the sign which was built in the spring of 1975 (Testimony of Mr. Miller).
The Issue The issues to be determined are: a) whether Petitioner’s sign for Crestview Paint and Body is located within Department of Transportation’s (“Department” or “Respondent”) right-of-way; and b) whether the sign is entitled to an on-premises exemption from permitting.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation is the state agency responsible for regulating outdoor advertising along interstates and federal-aid primary roads in accordance with chapter 479, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-10, and a 1972 Federal- State Agreement. Petitioner, Crestview Paint and Body, owns and operates an auto body repair shop on 956 West James Lee Boulevard in Crestview, Florida, and has maintained that location since 1988. In 2006, Petitioner bought property at 701 South Ferdon Boulevard in Crestview, Florida, including a pre-existing sign for Jet Muffler and a building with four units. Petitioner opened the business location in 2007, and replaced the Jet Muffler sign with one for Crestview Paint and Body. One of the issues of dispute in this matter is whether Petitioner conducted business at the Ferdon Boulevard location. Mr. Lowe, owner of Crestview Paint and Body, testified that the Ferdon Boulevard location was operated as a concierge service for Crestview Paint and Body. Mr. Lowe maintains a business occupational license for the Ferdon location and the license was effective and valid when Respondent issued the Notice on April 17, 2017. While a tax collector print-out reflected the business was closed, the credible evidence supports that the concierge location maintained a valid business occupation license. Mr. Lowe had business cards made with a photograph of the Ferdon Boulevard location showing Hertz and Crestview Paint and Body, and the words “Collision Concierge and Rental Car Center, 701 S. Ferdon Blvd, Crestview, Florida.” Another card read “2 Locations to Serve You Better” with the addresses for Ferdon Boulevard and James Lee Boulevard. The Crestview Paint and Body sign at issue here was located at the Ferdon Boulevard location. It was erected at the same spot as the predecessor sign that advertised the Jet Muffler business and installed under permit No. 2007-0430. Petitioner complied with all Crestview local ordinances required to erect the sign. As the sign was replacing an established sign, it is not clear if the City of Crestview required a survey of the location prior to installation. The sign has been owned and operated by Crestview Paint and Body in its current location for the past 10 years. Wayne Thompson, an employee of Crestview Paint and Body, testified that he works at the Ferdon location periodically. He meets customers at the location as needed, an average of two times per month. An employee was initially assigned to work full-time at the concierge location, but the position was reduced to part-time, and eventually eliminated. Senida Oglesby, a former customer of Crestview Paint and Body, testified that she received concierge service at the Ferdon Boulevard location. She took her vehicle to the location and it was transferred to the main location for completion of service. However, Ms. Oglesby stated she was last at the business approximately 3 to 4 years ago. Mr. Lowe testified that he completed an inspection of a vehicle at the concierge location on an undetermined date. Respondent asserts that its investigator visited the Ferdon Boulevard location on February 7, 2017; April 17, 2017; and May 15, 2017, and observed no business activity and concluded there was no business being conducted on behalf of Crestview Paint and Body at the location. The credible evidence demonstrates that there was no legitimate business activity being conducted on behalf of Crestview Paint and Body at the Ferdon Boulevard location. Ferdon Boulevard is a federal-aid primary highway subject to Department permitting in accordance with chapter 479. Crestview Paint and Body has never requested or received a permit for the display of outdoor advertising at the Ferdon Boulevard location. In 2015, Crestview Paint and Body leased Bay 101 of the Ferdon Boulevard location to a vape and smoke shop. The header signs positioned above the units numbered 101, 103, and 104 had signs for the vape and smoke shop. There was no header sign above unit 102. Mr. Collins placed a Notice sticker on the Crestview Paint and Body sign located at Ferdon Boulevard. On April 18, 2017, a written copy of the Notice was sent to Crestview Paint and Body at the James Lee Boulevard location. In preparing for the hearing, Billy Benson, a Department outdoor advertising field administrator, discovered that the sign appeared to be partially on the property owned by Crestview Paint and Body and partially on the Department’s right-of-way. The Department’s right-of-way is defined in section 334.03(21), Florida Statutes, as land in which the Department owns the fee or has an easement devoted to or required for use as a transportation facility. At the sign’s location, the right-of-way extended 50 feet to the right and 47 feet to the left of the centerline of Ferdon Boulevard. Mr. Collins again visited the Ferdon Boulevard location along with Sam Rudd. Mr. Collins and Mr. Rudd located survey markers to the north and south of the sign establishing the Department’s right-of-way line extending 10 feet beyond the edge of the sidewalk. The front edge of the sign began at two feet beyond the edge of the sidewalk and the back edge of the sign was 12 feet beyond the sidewalk. A survey conducted by a Department survey crew in November 2017, confirmed that 7.8 feet of the sign was located within the Department’s right-of-way and 2.6 feet of the sign was on Petitioner’s property. On September 20, 2017, the Department issued an Amended Notice of Violation–Illegally Erected Sign, noting that in addition to being an unpermitted sign in violation of section 479.105, the sign was located within the Department’s right-of- way in violation of sections 479.11(8) and 337.407. On September 20, 2017, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for Continuance, based on the recently discovered information and the sudden death of Mr. Lowe’s father. The motion provided: This matter involves an unpermitted sign in Okaloosa County. The department recently surveyed the sign’s location and determined the sign is within the Department’s right of way. Consequently, the department is issuing an amended notice of violation citing section 337.407 and 479.107, Florida Statutes, in addition to the initial reason for the violation based on section 479.105, Florida Statutes. The Department believes it is in the interest of judicial economy to have all charges determined in a single hearing. The Petitioner has indicated additional time will be needed to respond to the notice of violation as amended. Petitioner contends that it objected to the Department’s amendment of the Notice initially filed in this matter. While the Department did not properly file a Motion to Amend its Notice, there was no showing that Respondent was prejudiced by the Department's failure to comply with all requirements of the statute. Assuming arguendo there was prejudice, any prejudice alleged by Petitioner was cured. Petitioner agreed to the continuance, which stated the amendment of the Notice as a basis for the continuance. Further, Petitioner had more than 60 days to conduct discovery regarding the new allegations and had sufficient time to prepare for the hearing.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation enter a final order finding that Petitioner’s sign was erected and maintained on the Department’s right-of-way. Further, the final order should find that Petitioner is not entitled to an exemption for an on-premises sign. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Dixie Dan Powell, Esquire Powell Injury Law, P.A. 602 South Main Street Crestview, Florida 32536 (eServed) Susan Schwartz, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 (eServed) Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Michael J. Dew, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Erik Fenniman, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Henderson Signs is a partnership which was initially owned and operated by Ladon Henderson and his wife, Margie Henderson. When Ladon Henderson became inactive, his son, Gene Henderson, became a partner and he now operates the business with Margie Henderson. Henderson Signs has been licensed by the Department of Transportation to engage in the outdoor advertising business since before the year 1976. This license was renewed annually as required, and Henderson Signs now holds Outdoor Advertising License Number 20157 reissued on November 16, 1982. Henderson Signs has operated in Washington, Gadsden and Jackson Counties, but in July of 1981 this business was sold to Tri-State Systems, Inc., and pursuant to the terms of this sale Henderson Signs may not now engage in the outdoor advertising business in these three counties. It may, however, operate elsewhere. Between the years 1978 and 1981 Henderson Signs has received 17 notices of violations from the Department of Transportation charging that signs at 20 locations on Interstate 10 in Jackson County were erected illegally. This resulted in the opening of 22 dockets in the Division of Administrative Hearings to litigate administratively the charges against Henderson Signs. In 14 of these dockets the findings and conclusions resulted in a determination that Henderson was guilty as charged. Some of these guilty findings were appealed to the District Court of Appeals, where they were affirmed on the merits. Some were affirmed by per curiam opinions. Ten other cases have been docketed in this Division involving signs now owned by Tri-State Systems, Inc., pursuant to the sale by Henderson Signs. (This data has been taken from exhibits 1 and 2 offered by the Department.) This evidence demonstrates that the Respondent has repeatedly erected outdoor advertising signs along Inter-state 10 in Jackson County which were found to be illegal signs because of spacing violations, zoning violations, or lack of the required permit authorizing their erection. The legal position of Henderson Signs in many of the cases where administrative hearings were requested subsequent to the service of Notices of Violations, was that no state permits were necessary for varying reasons, one of which was that Interstate 10 had not become a part of the United States Interstate Highway System because it had not been opened to the public. Findings of not guilty were made in one Division of Administrative Hearings docket involving three sign violations, because of a failure of the evidence to prove that Interstate 10 was open to the public. (Data taken from exhibit 2 offered by the Department). The Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, affords parties whose substantial interests are affected by actions of Administrative Agencies the right to a hearing to resolve disputed issues. Henderson Signs utilized the provisions of this Act. When the disputes were resolved against the contentions of Henderson Signs, by agency order or by the Court after appeal, it removed the signs that were the subject of these proceedings. The Department of Transportation has never had to remove a Henderson sign for failure of the Respondent to comply with a final order determining it to be illegal. The Respondent contends that a genuine issue existed regarding the necessity of securing a permit prior to the erection of a sign along the site of Interstate 10 in Jackson County, until the time it became a part of the Federal Interstate Highway System by being opened for public traffic. There is no evidence from which a finding of fact can be made as to precisely when Interstate 10 in Jackson County was opened and in use by the public. The formal ceremony opening Interstate 10 was held in November of 1978. During the time between the erection of a sign by the Respondent and the order that it be removed after a determination that it was illegal, Henderson Signs received rental payments from the sign advertiser. Subsequent to July of 1981, when the Respondent sold its sign business in Jackson County, there have not been any notices of violation issued to Henderson Signs by the Department of Transportation.
Recommendation From the foregoing, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against Henderson Signs be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 21 day of July, 1983, 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 21st day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building; M.S . 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Charles M. Wynn, Esquire Post Office Box 793 Marianna, Florida 32446 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On August 19, 1976, Petitioner's Outdoor Advertising Inspector inspected Respondent's signs located at 1038 N.W. 36th Street, Miami, Florida. The location is within the city limits of Miami. Northwest 36th Street is also U.S. Highway 27. Two signs of the Respondent each 6' by 12' facing east, one above the other, had been erected at the above location. A distance of approximately 135' separated Respondent's sign from the nearest other sign facing the same direction on that side of the highway. (Testimony of Conde, Stipulation, Exhibit 1) Respondent had applied for a permit for the signs on January 12, 1976, but the application was denied by Petitioner because they did not meet the spacing requirements of Section 479.111, F.S. (Testimony of Conde) Petitioner issued a Notice of alleged violations of Sections 479.07(1) and 479.111(2), Florida Statutes with respect to Respondent's above described signs on August 23, 1976.
Recommendation That Respondent's alleged violation of Section 479.07(1), F.S. be dismissed. That Respondent's sign located at 1038 N.W. 36th Street, Miami, Florida, be removed under the authority of Section 479.17, Florida Statutes, as not permitted under Section 479.111(2), F.S. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. O.E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Jeffries H. Duval, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert Korner, Esquire 4790 Tamiami Trail Coral Gables, Florida 33134
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
The Issue Whether a sign owned by Henderson Sign Company located approximately one- tenth of a mile east of the junction of State Road 73 and U.S. 90 containing as old copy "Key Drug Center" and new copy "Best Western Motor Inn" is in violation of the permit (Section 479.07(1) and (6), F.S.), spacing (Sections 479.02 and 479.111(2), F.S.), and setback (Section 479.11(1),F.S.) requirements.
Findings Of Fact The respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising structure adjacent to U.S. Highway 90 approximately one-tenth mile east of its intersection with State Road No. 73 within the corporate limits of the City of Marianna. This structure is a double billboard, with one advertisement for "Key Drug Center," erected in August of 1974, and the other for "Best Western Motor Inn" erected in April of 1976. It is located approximately five (5) feet from the edge of the sidewalk approximately 10 to 15 feet from the edge of the north side of Highway 90. At the time of the Respondent's erection of the first sign, he obtained a permit from the City of Marianna but not from Petitioner Department of Transportation. Before erection of the second sign, in 1976, the Respondent submitted an application to the Petitioner, but the application was denied. There is no other outdoor advertising structure bearing a properly issued permit from the Petitioner in existence within 500 feet from the Respondent's advertising structure although there is a non-permitted sign within 120 feet facing in the same direction. Petitioner has entered into evidence a copy of the zoning ordinance of Marianna, Florida. Petitioner contends: that the signs of Respondent violate the set-back, space and permit section of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and of The Governor's Agreement of 1972. Respondent contends: that the Petitioner has not proved where the edge of the right-of-way of Federal Highway 90 is located, that the other sign, if any, is not a lawful sign, having no permit, so the spacing violation, if any, is not enforceable and that the requirement of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, does not apply to incorporated cities.
Recommendation Remove subject signs for violation of the 660 foot setback requirements of a federal aid highway, Section 479.11(1), and the spacing requirements of the Governor's Agreement of January 27, 1972. The zoning ordinance of Marianna, Florida does not show that there is effective control of outdoor advertising by the City of Marianna. DONE and ORDERED this 13th 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 Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Room 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Richard Wayne Grant, Esquire 209 North Jefferson Street Marianna, Florida 32446 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Henderson Sign Service Post Office Box 887 Marianna, Florida Mr. J. E. Jordan District Sign Coordinator Department of Transportation Post Office Box 607 Chipley, Florida 32428
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 At issue in these consolidated proceedings is whether the permits for signs bearing tag numbers BT339, AE862, and AX116 should be revoked, pursuant to Section 479.08, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Lamar owns and maintains outdoor advertising signs in the State of Florida. Pursuant to the permitting requirements of Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, the Department issues permits and tags to outdoor advertising signs along interstate and federal-aid primary highway systems. Signs that met permitting criteria at the time they were erected, but that do not comply with subsequently enacted laws or that no longer comply with the law due to changed conditions, may nonetheless be permitted and maintained as "nonconforming signs."1 In compliance with Subsection 479.02(8), Florida Statutes, the Department in 1997 and 1998 conducted a statewide inventory of all signs on the state interstate and federal-aid primary highway systems. This inventory became the database for all signs permitted at the time it was completed. The Department sent the inventory results to all sign owners in order to provide them an opportunity to confirm or challenge the accuracy of the results. The database includes the location of the sign; the dates the sign was permitted and constructed; its date and method of construction; the height, including the Height Above Ground Level ("HAGL"); the height, width, and square footage of the sign facing; the number and type of support structures used; whether the sign is lighted or not; the status of the sign as a conforming, nonconforming, or illegal sign; and other identifying information. Subsection 479.02(8), Florida Statutes, provides that the inventory of signs is to be updated no less than every two years. The Department in fact performs the update every year. In 2004, a series of hurricanes passed through Florida, destroying or damaging thousands of outdoor advertising signs. The Department issued notices of intent to revoke the permits of nonconforming signs that appeared to have been destroyed by the storms. In February 2005, the Department and Lamar entered into a settlement agreement that allowed Lamar to rebuild some signs and required the removal of others. The signs at issue in this proceeding were among those allowed to remain standing with repair. As to these signs, the settlement agreement provided: The outdoor advertising signs referenced above remain lawfully erected nonconforming signs and LAMAR may repair said signs, provided that said repair shall be at the pre-storm location and to pre-storm specifications, including configuration, type of materials, height, size, area of face and lighting. Exceptions to pre-storm specifications will be allowed to the extent required to comply with local building codes. Such repairs shall be completed within 270 days of entry of a Final Order approving this Joint Stipulation of Settlement. The referenced Final Order was entered on March 15, 2005. The Department issued permit numbers 13778 and 137790 and tag numbers BT339 (replaced by tag number CF221 at the time of the hearing) and AE862 to a nonconforming, back-to-back sign located along U.S. 1 in Martin County, .08 miles north of Constitution Boulevard in Hobe Sound. At the time of the 1997 inventory, the Martin County sign was a five-pole wooden structure. The Martin County sign sustained heavy damage during the 2004 hurricanes. After the storms, Lamar sent a work crew to the sign's location to rebuild the sign. The work crew replaced the sign with a four-pole wooden structure. Dave Henry, the real estate leasing manager for Lamar, testified that he gave the crew no particular instruction on how to rebuild the sign. During the rebuilding process, Mr. Henry gave his crews the locations, and told them to rebuild the signs as they had been before the storms. Mr. Henry stated that the crew probably looked at the remains of the damaged sign, saw only four stumps in the ground, and assumed that the original sign had only four supports. On March 21, 2006, the Department issued a Notice to Lamar, stating that the sign bearing tag numbers BT339 and AE862 "has been structurally changed and is no longer substantially the same as it was on the date it became nonconforming, in violation of s. [sic] 14-10.007(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code Rule." On February 20, 2007, a Recommended Order was entered in Lamar South Florida v. Department of Transportation, Case No. 06-3281 (DOAH February 20, 2007). In that case, Judge R. Bruce McKibben recommended that the Department withdraw a Notice issued to Lamar South Florida because the Notice failed to specify exactly which changes to the sign in question caused the sign to be in violation of the Department's rules. Rather, the Notice merely provided a citation to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2)(a). In a final order dated May 21, 2007, the Department accepted Judge McKibben's recommendation, and acknowledged the "apparent confusion" regarding the running of the 30-day notice period and the nature of the notice required to trigger the running of that period. As a result of the Lamar South Florida case, the Department began to issue Notices that contained more specific information regarding the alleged violations. On July 31, 2007, the Department sent Lamar a replacement Notice for the Martin County sign, adding a more specific description of the violation, which stated that the sign "has been structurally modified in violation of s. [sic] 14-10.007(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code Rule: the number of supports has changed."2 The replacement notice also added the following provision: REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT(S) WILL BECOME FINAL thirty (30) days from your receipt of this notice unless you provide information to the Department showing the Notice was issued in error OR you correct the violation within 30 days of your receipt of this Notice, and provide evidence of the correction to the Department. For nonconforming signs, while you may correct the violation, you may not exceed the allowable maintenance standards as stated in s. 14-10.007(2), F.A.C. Lamar did not act within 30 days of the Notice to correct the violation and restore the Martin County sign to a five-pole structure. Mr. Henry testified that a fifth pole was added to the structure on November 16, 2007. The Department issued permit number 7359 and tag number AX116 to a nonconforming, single-faced sign in Polk County along U.S. 27, .141 miles east of Heatherwood Boulevard in Lake Wales. On November 22, 1997, the Polk County sign was inventoried and photographed as a seven-pole wooden structure. Lamar did not own the sign at the time the 2004 hurricanes damaged it. Lamar acquired the Polk county sign in 2005, after it had been rebuilt as a six-pole structure. On March 21, 2006, the Department issued a Notice to Lamar, stating that the sign bearing tag number AX116 "has been structurally changed and is no longer substantially the same as it was on the date it became nonconforming, in violation of s. [sic] 14-10.007(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code." On July 31, 2007, the Department sent Lamar a replacement Notice for the Polk County sign, adding a more specific description of the violation which stated that the sign "has been structurally modified in violation of s. [sic] 14- 10.007(2), Florida Administrative Code: the number of supports has changed. . .".3 The replacement notice also contained the language quoted at finding of fact 14, supra. Lamar did not act within 30 days of the Notice to correct the violation and restore the Polk County sign to a seven-pole structure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation revoking the permits for the nonconforming signs bearing tag numbers BT339, AE862, and AX116. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 21st day of February, 2008.
