The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent should revoke Petitioner's sign permits and retrieve Petitioner's permit tags because Petitioner violated Sections 479.07(5) and 479.08, Florida Statutes, 1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 10.004(7), 2/ by allegedly removing its sign from its property and by failing to display the permit tag prior to removing the sign.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation formed in 1983 by Mr. Rodney Forton. Mr. Forton is the president and sole shareholder of Petitioner. Sometime in 1987, Petitioner entered into a management agreement with Cotee River Outdoor Advertising Company ("Cotee River"). The management agreement provided that Cotee River would construct a sign on property owned by Petitioner on U.S. highway 19 in New Port Richey, Florida (the "Cotee River sign"). Cotee River agreed to pay Petitioner a portion of the advertising revenues from the sign. The Cotee River Permit On May 26, 1987, Cotee River applied for an outdoor advertising sign permit from Respondent. The application described the Cotee River sign as a rectangular wood sign measuring 10 feet by 20 feet, with its lowest point approximately 15 feet above ground level and its highest point approximately 25 feet above the crown of the road. Respondent approved the application and mailed the approval to Cotee River on May 29, 1987. On June 3, 1987, Respondent located the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory at, Section 595, ". . . N/B 5.06 in F/N." The number "5.06" indicates that the sign is located at milepost 5.06 on U.S. 19. 3/ Mileposts describe the location of each sign by the distance of the sign from a fixed point. Each of Respondent's outdoor advertising inspectors measures the milepost for each sign in his or her territory using a distance measuring instrument. Respondent then enters the milepost for each sign in Respondent's sign inventory. The milepost of 5.06 that Respondent assigned to the Cotee River permit was incorrect. In May 1987, Cotee River constructed a sign on Petitioner's property pursuant to the permit granted by Respondent. The sign was a metal monopole sign rather than the wood sign described in the application. The Cotee River sign was not constructed at milepost 5.060. Cotee River rented the sign to outdoor advertisers. However, Cotee River failed to pay any portion of the advertising revenue to Petitioner, and the parties resolved the matter by mutual agreement. Petitioner and Cotee River agreed that Cotee River would release its right to manage the Cotee River sign in consideration for the right to manage a sign located on other property owned by Petitioner. The agreement provided that Petitioner would pay Cotee River a prescribed sum in exchange for the performance of specific duties by Cotee River. Cotee River failed to perform the duties specified in the agreement. Petitioner refused to pay the balance of payments. Petitioner sued Cotee River. Cotee River went into bankruptcy and was dissolved. Petitioner's Permit On July 14, 1992, Petitioner applied for an outdoor advertising sign permit for the Cotee River sign. The application described the sign as an existing rectangular, metal, monopole "sign in place," measuring approximately 10 feet by 20 feet. The application stated that the sign was first erected in May 1987. Respondent approved the application from Petitioner and mailed the approval to Petitioner on October 12, 1992. Respondent again incorrectly listed the location of the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory as, Section 595, ". . . N/B 5.060 in F/N." Respondent issued permit tag number BG341-25 to Petitioner. Although Petitioner used the Cotee River sign to generate advertising revenue, Petitioner never displayed any tag numbers on the sign. The tag numbers remained in Petitioner's files until sometime in 1995. Dr. Goluba's Permit At about the same time that Cotee River went out of business in 1992, Robert L. Goluba, D.D.S., owned property immediately adjacent to Petitioner's property. Prior to March 1993, an unidentified representative of Respondent contacted Dr. Goluba. The representative told Dr. Goluba that there were two signs on Dr. Goluba's property that were going to be taken down if the sign permits were not renewed. The representative mistakenly identified one of the two signs as the Cotee River sign. The representative went on to explain that Respondent could avoid the expense of taking down the two signs if Dr. Goluba obtained permits for the signs. Dr. Goluba wanted the advertising revenues and agreed to obtain the necessary permits. On March 2, 1993, Dr. Goluba applied for a sign permit for the Cotee River sign he mistakenly believed to be located on his property. The application described the sign as an "existing" rectangular, metal, monopole sign measuring approximately 10 feet by 24 feet, with its lowest point approximately 18 feet above ground level and its highest point approximately 30 feet above the crown of the road. The application stated that the sign was first erected in May 1987. Respondent approved the application from Dr. Goluba and mailed the approval to him on March 8, 1993. Respondent listed the location of the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory as, Section 595, ". . . N/M.P. 4.870 in F/N." Respondent incorrectly listed Dr. Goluba's permit in the sign inventory at milepost 4.870. On March 24, 1993, Respondent issued permit number BG960-35 to Dr. Goluba. Although Dr. Goluba never derived advertising revenue from the Cotee River sign, he did display his permit on the sign. Dr. Goluba inadvertently failed to pay the fee required to renew the sign permit in 1994 and, therefore, failed to display current permits on the sign. On April 11, 1994, Respondent issued a Notice of Violation, Failure To Display Permit Tag. The New Outdoor Advertising Inspector In early 1995, a new outdoor advertising inspector assumed responsibility for the territory in which the Cotee River sign was located. On April 11, 1995, the inspector conducted a field inspection to verify the mileposts and signs in the territory for which he was responsible. The inspector correctly identified the milepost of the Cotee River sign as milepost 4.980. He found no sign subject to regulation by Respondent 4/ located at milepost 5.060. Milepost 5.060 and 4.980 are approximately 422 feet apart. Relevant law prohibits the location of regulated signs within 1,000 feet of each other. 5/ No exceptions to 1,000 foot prohibition applied to the Cotee River sign. The inspector concluded that Petitioner had removed the wood sign originally permitted to Cotee River in 1987 and which Respondent had incorrectly listed in its sign inventory as being located at milepost 5.060. On July 12, 1995, Respondent issued to Petitioner a Notice Of Violation -- Removed Sign. On August 22, 1995, Respondent ordered the revocation of Petitioner's tag permit because Petitioner had allegedly removed the Cotee River sign from milepost 5.060. Respondent never issued a Notice of Violation to Petitioner for failure to display his tag numbers on the Cotee River sign. Petitioner protested the revocation of its permit and refused to return the permit tags to Respondent. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. In the meantime, Dr. Goluba's accountant had inadvertently failed to pay the permit fee for the Cotee River sign. Respondent placed the Cotee River sign on Respondent's "cutdown list" for failure to pay the required fees. On June 20, 1995, Respondent had the Cotee River sign cut down and removed. Respondent sent Dr. Goluba a bill in the amount of $4,990 for the cost of cutting the sign down and removing it. Prior to the date Respondent cut down and removed the Cotee River sign, Petitioner notified the inspector verbally and with written documentation that the sign was owned by Petitioner, located on Petitioner's property, and permitted to Petitioner. The inspector found that Respondent's records did not agree with Petitioner's records. The inspector informed Petitioner that the "cutdown order" came from Tallahassee and there was nothing the inspector could do. Dr. Goluba's tags were displayed on the Cotee River sign at the time it was cut down and removed. Ms. Maria Passanisi was the broker who managed the sign for Dr. Goluba. Ms. Passanisi was at the site when the sign was cut down and removed. She protested Respondent's action so vehemently that the police officers regulating traffic at the scene had to intervene to quell the disturbance. After Respondent cut down the Cotee River sign, Petitioner drove a stick into the ground where the sign had been located and displayed the permit tags for the removed sign on the stick. The tags were displayed on the stick at the time of the hearing. The Computerized Sign Inventory Respondent uses a computer system to maintain its sign inventory. The computer system does not accept the same milepost for two or more regulated signs. When Petitioner applied for its sign permit in 1992, Respondent was required to carry the Cotee River permit in the inventory as a void permit. The computer system would not accept the same milepost for Petitioner's permit and the void Cotee River permit. In order to circumvent the computer system, Respondent's supervisor of property management arbitrarily changed the milepost number entered for the Cotee River permit from milepost 5.060 to milepost 4.970. As late as September 20, 1993, Respondent's computerized sign inventory identified the Cotee River sign as being located at three incorrect mileposts. The inventory located the same sign permitted to Cotee River, Petitioner, and Dr. Goluba, respectively, at mileposts 4.970, 5.060, and 4.870. In 1995, the new outdoor advertising inspector correctly located the Cotee River sign at milepost 4.980. However, he mistakenly assumed that milepost 5.060 was the correct milepost for Petitioner's sign and erroneously concluded that Petitioner had removed its sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not remove the permitted sign and that the permits issued to Petitioner are valid. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1997.
The Issue What final agency action should the Department of Transportation take on Petitioner's Application for Outdoor Advertising Permit.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The proposed sign that is the subject of the instant controversy (Proposed Sign) is located off of I-95 in the City of Miami (City) at 328-334 Flagler Street on a parcel of land leased by Petitioner from CanPartners Realty (CanPartners Parcel). Section 10.4.5 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.4.5), which has been in effect since 2002, prohibits "new signs of outdoor advertising," except in limited circumstances. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: For the purposes of this section, "Outdoor advertising signs" are signs used in the conduct of the outdoor advertising business; an outdoor advertising business, for the purpose of this section, is defined as the business of receiving or paying money for displaying signs where the sign copy does not pertain to the use of the property, a product sold, or the sale or lease of the property on which the sign is displayed and which does not identify the place of business as purveyor of the merchandise or services advertised on the sign. Except as otherwise provided in Articles 4 and 10 and/or the City Code, or, pursuant to this subsection, no new freestanding "Outdoor advertising signs," as defined above shall be allowed. * * * Notwithstanding any provision of this Zoning Ordinance to the contrary, permits for outdoor advertising signs may be issued pursuant to a Settlement Agreement authorized by Resolution passed by the City Commission, in conjunction with the settlement of related litigation, which expressly authorizes issuance of such permits for said outdoor advertising signs, and then only under the terms and conditions of settlement agreements that result in a net reduction in the party to the settlement's number of outdoor advertising signs located in the City of Miami. . . . The City has entered into "Settlement Agreements" of the type described in the last paragraph of Section 10.4.5 with three sign owners: Carter Pritchett Hodges, Inc., d/b/a Carter Outdoor Advertising, Inc.; Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. d/b/a/ Clear Channel Outdoor; and Intervenor. The City does not have a such a "Settlement Agreement" with Petitioner. The City entered into its Settlement Agreement with Intervenor (City/CBS Settlement Agreement) on July 18, 2008. The City/CBS Settlement Agreement contains the following provisions, among others: 4. Amended Permits. In recognition of CBS's [Intervenor's] removal of the numerous Sign structures and Sign faces described in this Agreement and waiver of just compensation thereof, the City will amend a maximum of 15 existing sign permits (the "Amended Permits") to allow CBS to transfer the permit rights associated with such Signs to new locations with a maximum of two (2) Sign faces each on the terms and conditions set forth below: The City will amend up to a maximum of 15 permits for Signs based on CBS's removal of Signs on a two for one basis: for every two bulletin faces removed, one bulletin face may be erected with an Amended Permit. . . . * * * c. Upon application by CBS showing compliance with the provisions of this paragraph, the City will amend existing Sign permits to allow the transfer of permit rights associated with such Sign or Signs to locations within the same or a less restrictive Zoning District. For all Initial Amended Permits and Amended Permits, CBS will submit FDOT Form 575-010-04 to the City, which will be stamped on the date received. The City's signature on the FDOT Form 575-010-04 shall constitute approval of the location of the sign, and no further approvals from the City shall be required. All Sign permits will be processed "first in, first out," such that no other FDOT Forms may be signed or authorized for a subsequent application which would interfere with the location secured by a previously approved FDOT Form 575-010-04. If an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature, the City's approval will become null and void for that particular application. * * * 19. Miscellaneous. * * * f. Assignments/Binding Nature. This Agreement will be binding upon and will inure to the benefit of the any successor or permitted assigns of the parties hereto. CBS shall have the right of assignment of rights and obligations under this Agreement. However, no attempted assignment by CBS will be valid unless: (1) the assignee shall execute an Agreement to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to accept all of the rights and obligations of CBS under this Agreement; and (2) the assignment is approved in writing by the City Commission, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. The parties acknowledge that the City Commission shall have the right to reject proposed assignment if the assignee does not fully adopt the terms of this Agreement. Any such assignment shall not relieve CBS of its obligations under this Agreement . . . . Any attempted assignment in violation of this Section shall be void. In anticipation of the finalization of the City/CBS Settlement Agreement, Intervenor (through Joseph Little) and Petitioner (through Harkley Thorton) had signed, on May 1, 2008, a Letter of Understanding (LOU) "set[ting] forth the understanding between [Intervenor] and [Petitioner] concerning new sign locations to be utilized in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement between [Intervenor] and the City of Miami." The first numbered paragraph of the LOU explained: CBS is negotiating and attempting to finalize a Settlement Agreement with the City whereby the City will issue 15 amended permits for the construction of new monopole signs with double faces, on expressways located within the City, in return for which CBS will remove 2 existing (or previously removed) sign faces for each new sign face constructed pursuant to an Amended Permit, subject to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement between CBS and the City. Paragraph 2 of the LOU read, in pertinent part, as follows: With respect to the Settlement Agreement with the City, CBS and OM [Petitioner] agree as follows: * * * Under the Settlement Agreement, CBS seeks to obtain 7 Initial Amended Permits (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) one of which is tentatively agreed to be located in Jose Marti Park. Provided there is no term in the Settlement Agreement and the City does not otherwise require CBS to develop a site in the Jose Marti Park, CBS will abandon its proposed Jose Marti Park site and instead accept a site owned by Brickell Land Development Company, located at approximately 300 SW 8th Street (the "Brickell Site"), which is or will be subject to a lease with OM that allows construction and operation of a sign in accordance with the terms of paragraph (2c) below. . . . Provided OM obtains four (4) additional sites for placement of signs pursuant to Amended Permits under the Settlement Agreement, CBS agrees to accept said four sites provided CBS deems each site to be commercially viable. . . . For each of the sites accepted by CBS, CBS will enter into a sub-lease agreement with OM, whereby OM will be the sub-lessor and CBS will be the sub-lessee. . . . Provided that OM produces the Brickell Partners Site and four (4) additionally Commercially Viable Locations, CBS will assign the rights to one (1) of its amended permits under the Settlement Agreement with the City. CBS will assign to OM, and OM will assume, CBS's rights and obligations under the Settlement Agreement to said amended permit except for CBS'[s] obligations pursuant to paragraphs (7a-7d), (8a), and (12a). CBS will provide for the removal of two (2) of its existing sign structures to allow the City to issue the said Amended Permit to OM under the Settlement Agreement. * * * h. CBS'[s] acceptance of the four (4) Commercially Viable Locations referenced in 2c above is expressly conditioned upon the City's approving all locations on Exhibits B and B-1, as amended from time to time, as appropriate removals for Amended Permits in the Settlement Agreement. The penultimate paragraph of the LOU (Paragraph 6) provided as follows: This letter is a Letter of Understanding and binding between the parties and establishes the major business points and conditions of the Parties' agreement for this transaction. However, it is not all inclusive in that it does not contain all the deal points. The Parties agree to expand upon this Letter of Understanding in good faith to prepare a full agreement that can be executed within thirty (30) days of the date of this Letter of Understanding. Such agreement shall be consistent with the terms of this Letter of Understanding and contain such further terms and conditions as are mutually acceptable to the Parties. However, the failure of the Parties to complete a full agreement shall not invalidate the terms of this Letter of Understanding or excuse either Party from performing its obligations and responsibilities as set forth herein. The record is devoid of evidence that Intervenor and Petitioner ever executed a "full agreement," as contemplated by paragraph 6 of the LOU. Intervenor has not executed (pursuant to Paragraph 2e. of the LOU), nor has the City Commission approved (pursuant to Paragraph 19f. of the City/CBS Settlement Agreement), any assignment to Petitioner of Intervenor's rights under the City/CBS Settlement Agreement (although Petitioner believes that it is entitled to such an assignment and has so argued in circuit court litigation in which it is currently involved with Intervenor). On May 2, 2008, Intervenor (through Mr. Little) sent a letter to the City, which read as follows: CBS Outdoor, Inc. [Intervenor] and Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC [Petitioner] have signed a letter of understanding dated May 1, 2008 (The "Agreement"). Please accept this letter as confirmation that in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, CBS Outdoors, Inc. consents to Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC filing Applications for Outdoor Advertising Permits with the Florida Department of Transportation on our behalf. Thereafter, Petitioner submitted to the City's Zoning Administrator, Lourdes Slazyk, (on the version of FDOT Form 575- 010-04 then in effect) Petitioner's Application, requesting that Ms. Slazyk complete and sign the "Local Government Permission" section of the form. Obtaining such "Local Government Permission" is among the prerequisites for receiving an outdoor advertising sign permit from the Department. To erect an outdoor advertising sign in the City after the Department issues a permit, a City building permit (which is "something other than" the "Local Government Permission" referred to above) is required. Ms. Slazyk completed and signed the "Local Government Permission" section of the form, as requested, on May 22, 2008. It was not until almost a year later that Petitioner's Application was submitted to the Department. In completing the form, Ms. Slazyk checked the box indicating that the "outdoor advertising sign identified in this application: [was] in compliance with all duly adopted local ordinances and has been or will be issued the necessary permits." She did so based upon her understanding that the application (which named Petitioner as the applicant) was actually being filed by Petitioner on behalf and with the consent of Intervenor (in accordance with Mr. Little's May 2, 2008, letter) and that Petitioner was "traveling under" the City/CBS Settlement Agreement. Had Intervenor not notified the City that Petitioner was, with Intervenor's consent, "filing Applications for Outdoor Advertising Permits with the Florida Department of Transportation on [Intervenor's] behalf," Ms. Slazyk would not have checked the "compliance" box on the form, given the requirement of Section 10.4.5 of the City's Zoning Ordinance that "permits for outdoor advertising signs" may be issued only "pursuant to a Settlement Agreement" of the type described in Section 10.4.5 (to which Petitioner, unlike Intervenor, was not a party). On August 28, 2008, Intervenor (through Mr. Little) sent a letter to the City, which read as follows: CBS Outdoor, Inc. herewith withdraws its blanket letter of consent dated May 2, 2008 authorizing the City to approve FDOT application forms by Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC on our behalf. A copy of that letter is attached. Henceforth, any FDOT outdoor advertising application form submitted to the City by Outlook must include a specific authorization from CBS Outdoor indicating our approval and authorizing the City to process the FDOT form pursuant to our Settlement Agreement with the City. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. By letter dated October 24, 2008, Intervenor (through its attorney, Glenn Smith, Esquire), advised the City, among other things, that it was "withdraw[ing]" certain applications for outdoor advertising sign permits from the Department, including Petitioner's Application, that either it or Petitioner, on Intervenor's behalf, had previously submitted to the City to obtain the "Local Government Permission" required for such a Department permit. On February 13, 2009, Petitioner (through its attorney, Amanda Quirke, Esquire) sent a letter to Ms. Slazyk, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: As you are aware, under Section 4(c) of the CBS Settlement agreement with the City of Miami, the City's approval of a location becomes null and void if an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature on FDOT Form 575-070-04. In addition, FDOT requires local government approval within 6 months of the application to FDOT. Therefore, Outlook Media is requesting the renewal of the approval of the City of Miami for the following locations: * * * CanPartners Realty * * * Applications are attached for each one of the aforementioned locations. Please stamp the attached applications received today, and advise when we can pick up the stamped received copies for our files. Thank you for your assistance. Intervenor had not authorized Petitioner to make such a request on Intervenor's behalf. Accordingly, (through Mr. Smith) it sent Ms. Quirke the following letter, dated February 18, 2009: As you are aware, this firm represents CBS Outdoor, Inc. ("CBS"). This letter is submitted in response to your February 13, 2009, letter to Lourdes Slazyk at the City of Miami ("City") seeking the approval of the City of the Renewal Applications. CBS has issued no authorization to OM [Petitioner] to submit the Renewal Applications to the City. Therefore, the February 13, 2009 Letter is ultra vires, and OM is directed to withdraw same. If OM desires to obtain CBS's authorization to process the Renewal Applications to the City, OM is directed to submit to CBS a written request for authorization to do so. OM's written request for authorization should address, among other things, the following: CBS's original authorization to OM to submit the FDOT Application to the City was to authorize OM to make submissions on behalf of CBS. Please confirm that any submission of Renewal Application by OM to the City will likewise be on behalf of CBS. Many questions remain relative as the various locations identified in the February 13, 2009, Letter as to whether the locations are "commercially viable." See Attachment A hereto. Please contact the undersigned to schedule a meeting to discuss resolution of these remaining questions. Can Partners Realty: As you know, the City has agreed to approve the Lummis Site. Therefore, the CanPartners Realty site is no longer under consideration and is not to be renewed. OM is hereby specifically directed to take no action to renew the FDOT Application for this site. CBS and its representative are available to discuss the February 13, 2009 Letter, the Renewal Applications and the contents of this letter. If OM desires to discuss same, please contact the undersigned for that purpose. That same day (February 18, 2009), Intervenor (through Mr. Smith) also sent a letter to Ms. Slazyk, in which it stated the following: As you are aware, this firm represents CBS Outdoor, Inc. ("CBS"). This letter is being sent to you on behalf of CBS in response to the February 13, 2009 Letter to you from counsel for OM. In the February 13, 2009 Letter, counsel for OM requests approval by the City of Miami (the "City") of the Renewal Applications under the CBS Settlement Agreement with the City. Please be advised that CBS has not authorized OM to present the Renewal Applications to the City. Therefore, CBS requests that the City take no action on the Renewal Application until the City receives further communications regarding same from CBS. Notwithstanding Intervenor's directive (communicated in its February 18, 2009, letter to Ms. Quirke) that "the CanPartners Realty site . . . not . . . be renewed," on that same date (February 18, 2009), Petitioner (through Ms. Quirke) sent a follow-up letter to Ms. Slazyk, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: In accordance with the request of CBS, please accept this revised request for the renewal of the outdoor advertising applications, originally submitted on February 13, 2009. This revised request is a clarification that Outlook is requesting the renewal of the approval of the following applications on behalf of CBS. As you are aware, under Section 4(c) of the CBS Settlement agreement with the City of Miami, the City's approval of a location becomes null and void if an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature on FDOT Form 575-070-04. In addition, FDOT requires local government approval within 6 months of the application to FDOT. Therefore, Outlook Media of South Florida, on behalf of CBS, is requesting the renewal of the approval of the City of Miami for the following locations: * * * CanPartners Realty * * * Applications are attached for each one of the aforementioned locations. Please stamp the attached applications received today, and advise when we can pick up the stamped, received copies for our files. Thank you for your assistance. The following day, February 19, 2009, Ms. Slazyk wrote back to Ms. Quirke, stating the following: I am in receipt of a faxed letter with back up from your office dated February 13, 2009 and faxed again, as modified, dated February 18, 2009 requesting renewal of certain outdoor advertising signs. I am informing you that, per the attached letters from CBS, and their representatives, the request is not authorized. Petitioner appealed Ms. Slazyk's denial of its renewal request to the City Zoning Board, which upheld the denial. Petitioner thereafter took a further appeal to the City Commission, but Petitioner subsequently withdrew this appeal. It is the City's position "today" (as expressed by Ms. Slazyk at hearing) that Petitioner does not have "Local Government Permission" from the City for the Proposed Sign. On May 4, 2009, almost a year after Ms. Slazyk had signed the "Local Government Permission" section of Petitioner's Application, Petitioner's Application was submitted to the Department.5 The Department contracts with Cardno TBE "to do physical inspections of potential advertising sites" that are the subject of permit applications. For the past 11 years, Matt Barnes has been employed by Cardno TBE as an outdoor advertising inspector responsible for conducting such inspections for the Department. Mr. Barnes was assigned the task of inspecting the CanPartners Parcel (the site where, according to Petitioner's Application, the Proposed Sign would be located). Using two different distance measuring devices,6 Mr. Barnes measured the distance "along the highway [I-95]" from a point directly above the Proposed Sign location (as indicated by a "wooden stake [sticking] about two feet out of the ground" that had been placed there by Petitioner) to the "nearest permitted sign" on the same side of the "highway" (which was to the south and bore tag numbers 412 and 413).7 He "came up with 970 feet both times." On May 19, 2009, the Department issued its Notice of Denied Outdoor Advertising Permit Application, announcing its intention to deny Petitioner's Application because, in pertinent part, the "[Proposed] [S]ign [did] not meet spacing requirements" and the "Local Government Permission" was given "more than six (6) months prior to [the Department's] receipt [of the application]." Petitioner subsequently requested a "formal administrative hearing" on the matter. On May 21, 2009, Intervenor filed an Application for Outdoor Advertising Permit for a sign to be located at 350 Northwest Second Street in the City on a parcel leased to Intervenor by Lummus Park Associates, LLC (Lummus Sign). Because of its proximity to the location of the Proposed Sign, the Lummus Sign would violate minimum spacing requirements and thus not be permittable were Petitioner's Application to be granted. Accordingly, Intervenor's application is being held in "pending status" by the Department until final action is taken on Petitioner's Application.8 On June 17, 2009, Petitioner (through one of its principals, Santiago Echemendia, Esquire) sent a letter to the City, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: This law firm represents Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC ("Outlook"). As you may be aware, Section 14 of SB 360 provides that any local government issued development order or building permit that has an expiration date of September 1, 2008 through January 1, 2012, is extended and renewed for a period of two years following its date of expiration. In accordance with Section 4(c) of the Settlement Agreement between CBS Outdoor, Inc. and the City of Miami (attached), "[i]f an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature, the City's approval will become null and void for that particular application." FDOT also takes the position that the local government permission on FDOT Form 575-070-04 must be issued within 180 days of application to FDOT for an FDOT tag for a sign location. On behalf of Outlook, pursuant to Section 14 of Senate Bill 360, please accept this letter as notification that Outlook is extending the local government permission provided on FDOT Form 575-070-04 for the following locations: * * * Site: CanPartners Folio Number: 01-4137-036-0020 Local Government Permission: 05/22/08 FDOT 180 Day Expiration: 11/18/08 2 Year Extension of FDOT 180 Day Expiration: 11/18/10 Original 280 Day Expiration: 02/26/09 2 Year Extension of City of Miami Expiration: 02/26/11 * * * This 2 year extension notification applies to extend both the FDOT 180 Day Expiration, as well as the 280 Day Expiration set forth in the CBS Settlement Agreement. Therefore, the expiration date for the aforementioned sign locations is extended until the dates listed in the columns entitled "2 Year Extension of FDOT 180 Day Expiration" and "2 Year Extension of City of Miami Expiration." A copy of the FDOT Form 575-070-04 for each of the sign locations is attached for your convenience. . . . On October 5, 2009 (approximately five months after the filing of Petitioner's Application with the Department), the City Commission, on second reading, adopted a resolution (Resolution File Number 09-01061) to enable it to participate in the "pilot program" established by Section 479.07(9)(c), Florida Statutes, "under which the distance between permitted signs on the same side of an interstate highway may be reduced to 1,000 feet if [certain] requirements . . . are met." The resolution, which is still in effect, provides as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION EXPRESSING ITS INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN A PILOT PROGRAM ALLOWING 1,000 FOOT SPACING OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS ALONG EXPRESSWAYS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NOTIFY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE CITY'S INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH PILOT PROGRAM. WHEREAS, Section 10.4.5 of the Miami Zoning Ordinance prohibits new freestanding "Outdoor advertising signs" as defined therein, except for Outdoor advertising signs permitted pursuant to a Settlement Agreement that results in a net reduction in the number of Outdoor advertising signs located in the City of Miami (hereinafter "qualified settlement agreement"); and WHEREAS, by separate Resolutions, the City Commission has authorized the City Manager on behalf of the City of Miami ("City") to enter into qualified settlement agreements with the following sign owners: Carter Pritchett Hodges, Inc. d/b/a Carter Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("Carter"), Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. d/b/a/ Clear Channel Outdoor ("Clear Channel"), and CBS Outdoor, Inc. (hereinafter "CBS"); and WHEREAS, at the time the qualified settlement agreements were approved by the City Commission, Section 479.07(9)(a), F.S. (2008), required new Outdoor advertising signs to be located at least one thousand five hundred feet from any other permitted sign on the same side on an interstate highway (hereinafter "1,500 foot spacing"); and WHEREAS, by House Bill 1021, the Florida Legislature recently amended s. 479.07(9)(c), F.S., in the 2009 Legislative Session, to include the City within a pilot program permitting new Outdoor advertising signs on an interstate highway to be located within one thousand feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of the interstate highway (hereinafter "1,000 foot spacing") under certain enumerated conditions, to wit: "(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1), there is established a pilot program in Orange, Hillsborough, and Osceola Counties, and within the boundaries of the City of Miami, under which the distance between permitted signs on the same side of an interstate highway may be reduced to 1,000 feet if all other requirements of this chapter are met and if: The local government has adopted a plan, program, resolution, ordinance, or other policy encouraging the voluntary removal of signs in a downtown, historic, redevelopment, infill, or other designated area which also provides for a new or replacement sign to be erected on an interstate highway within that jurisdiction if a sign in the designated area is removed; The sign owner and the local government mutually agree to the terms of the removal and replacement; and The local government notifies the department of its intention to allow such removal and replacement as agreed upon pursuant to subparagraph 2." and WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it in the best interest of the City to participate in the pilot program authorized by s. 479.07(9)(c), F.S. (2009), which would permit 1,000 foot spacing for Outdoor advertising signs under the guidelines provided in this Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section. 2. Pursuant to s. 479.07(9)(c)(2), F.S. (2009), the City hereby adopts a pilot program encouraging the voluntary removal of signs within the boundaries of the City, which provides, subject to the conditions stated below, for a new or replacement sign to be erected on an interstate highway, with 1,000 foot spacing, if other Outdoor advertising signs within the boundaries of the City are removed. Section 3. Any sign owner seeking permission to erect an Outdoor advertising sign with 1,000 foot spacing under this pilot program shall meet the following conditions: The sign owner must have a qualified settlement agreement with the City; Any application for a new sign under the pilot program must be in accordance with all terms and conditions of the qualified settlement agreement unless otherwise specified in these conditions; In no event may an application for a new sign under the pilot program exceed the limitation on the number of signs otherwise permitted under the qualified settlement agreement; The duration of the pilot program will not exceed the term of the qualified settlement agreement; No LED Sign may be erected with 1,000 foot spacing unless allowed by an amendment to the sign owner's qualified settlement agreement pursuant to applicable provisions of the Miami Zoning Ordinance; Sign owners must specify in advance of applying for a 1,000 foot spacing application the locations of the signs proposed to be removed or already removed; Sign owners may not be delinquent on any financial obligation to the City as per their qualified settlement agreement; All Outdoor advertising signs erected with 1,000 foot spacing shall be designed with aluminum plating (example attached) or be subject to design review per Manager's designee or designees. Section 4. Should s. 479.07(9)(c), F. S. (2009) be repealed by the Florida Legislature, this pilot program shall automatically expire. Section 5. The City Manager is authorized (1) to notify the Florida Department of Transportation of the City's intention to allow removal and replacement of Outdoor advertising signs under 1,000 foot spacing as provided in this Resolution. Section 6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor. Petitioner has not entered into "a qualified settlement agreement with the City" providing for the removal and replacement of outdoor advertising signs (as required by Section 3(a) of Resolution File Number 09-01061), nor has it at any time, much less "in advance" of having submitted its application (as required by Section 3(f) of Resolution File Number 09-01061), "specif[ied]" what sign(s) would be removed and replaced if the Proposed Sign were to be permitted. In or around November 2009, Petitioner retained the services of Mario Prats, a Florida-licensed surveyor since 1982, to measure how far the Proposed Sign location was to the nearest existing sign directly to the south of this location. When Mr. Prats went to the CanPartners Parcel, he did not see the stake that had been there in May 2009, when Mr. Barnes had done his measurements; nor did he see any other object marking the location of the Proposed Sign. He relied on a "drawing" to "approximate" where the sign would be. Using a "Topcon [measurement] device" and measuring, not along I-95, but the ramp to I-95, Mr. Prats determined that the distance between the Proposed Sign location and the closest sign south of this location was 1,032 feet. The only measurements offered and received into evidence to establish the distance between the Proposed Sign location and the nearest permitted sign (on the same side of the highway) were those taken by Mr. Barnes and Mr. Prats (as discussed above). Neither Mr. Barnes, nor Prats, determined that this distance was 1,500 feet or more.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a final order denying Petitioner's Application for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation (Respondent) should approve the application filed by Thoroughbred Development, Inc., and Rodney Dessberg (Petitioners) to permit an existing sign under the "grandfather" provision set forth in section 479.105(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2012).1/
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the state agency charged with regulation and permitting of certain outdoor advertising signs placed on specified highways. The Petitioners are the applicants for a sign permit, application number 58806/58807. The Petitioners own the sign and the property upon which the sign is located. The sign and property are located on U.S. 41, a federal aid primary highway designated in 2003 as a "Scenic Highway." The relevant portion of U.S. 41 is also referred to as the Tamiami Trail. The sign at issue in this proceeding (the "1964 sign") was erected in 1964 by owner Blue Heron fruit shippers. The sign has remained unpermitted, structurally unchanged, and continuously maintained at the same location since installation. The 1964 sign was built on a parcel of land (the "sign parcel") located at 7450 Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. A small commercial building also occupied the parcel. The location is within an unincorporated part of Manatee County. The sign parcel has been zoned for commercial use since the erection of the sign in 1964. The sign is not located on state right-of-way and is not a safety hazard. When the 1964 sign was erected, it was used to promote the Blue Heron fruit shipping business located on an adjacent parcel at 7440 Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida (the "Blue Heron parcel"). At all times material to this case, the two parcels have had separate legal descriptions. The parcels have separate driveway connections to Tamiami Trail. For reasons unknown, the addresses of the parcels were changed at some point, but the legal descriptions of the parcels have not been amended. Although the parcels were presumably commonly owned or leased by the Blue Heron fruit business at the time the 1964 sign was erected, the parcels were independently sold and owned individually by separate purchasers. The sign parcel is currently designated as 7851 North Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. The commercial building remains on the property. The Blue Heron parcel is currently designated as 7849 North Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. In October 1976, Kerry and Jane Kirschner purchased the Blue Heron parcel and the fruit business thereon. The Kirschners continued to operate the fruit business. The sign parcel was owned by another individual. Although there was no written agreement between the Kirschners and the owner of the sign parcel, Mr. Kirschner testified at the hearing that he made a monthly payment to the owner of the sign parcel so that he could continue using the sign to promote the fruit business. It is reasonable to presume that the monthly payment was based upon an agreement between the two owners. It would be unreasonable to assume that the payment was a gift from Mr. Kirschner to the owner of the sign parcel. In January 1978, the Kirschners purchased the sign parcel from the owner to whom Mr. Kirschner had been paying rent. Mr. Kirschner testified that the Kirschners bought the sign parcel to obtain the commercial building and to continue using the 1964 sign to promote the fruit business. In October 1978, "Florida Outdoor, Inc." filed an application for a two-sided sign (the "1978 sign") located on Tamiami Trail, 444 feet to the north of the 1964 sign. A sign permit application must identify the location of regulated signs located nearby the site of the proposed sign. Because the 1964 sign appeared to advertise an on-premises business and was therefore not subject to regulation, the applicant did not reference the 1964 sign. The Respondent approved the application and issued a permit (tag number AW881/AW882) to the applicant. In November 1979, "Florida Outdoor, Inc." filed an application for a two-sided sign (the "1979 sign") located on Tamiami Trail, 150 feet to the south of the 1964 sign. Again, the applicant did not reference the 1964 sign. The Respondent approved the application and issued a permit (tag number AW698/AW699) to the applicant. Both the 1978 and 1979 signs remain at their permitted locations. The Kirschners never combined the two parcels. They sold the Blue Heron parcel in 1986 and sold the sign parcel in 1993. The Notice of Violation dated January 31, 2012, was the first violation ever issued by the Respondent regarding the 1964 sign. At the hearing, the Respondent acknowledged that, had the 1964 sign not been considered exempted from regulation as an "on premises" sign, it could have been permitted prior to the installation of the 1978 and 1979 signs. Following the installation of the 1978 and 1979 signs, the 1964 sign could not have been permitted (absent the "grandfather" provision) due to sign spacing regulations not at issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order granting the application for the sign permit referenced herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 31st day of December, 2012.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Carter Signs is in the business of outdoor advertising which includes the installation, repair and maintenance of signs, billboards, or displays on real property. Pursuant to a twenty-year term lease that began on March 1, 1988, the Petitioner has leased the real property described as: Strap No. 344525-00- 00002.000 lying east of 1-75, in Lee County, Florida. The lease describes the specific intended use of the real property under the lease. The lessee has agreed to use and occupy the premises solely for the purpose of outdoor advertising. The real property is located in Lee County, Florida, within 660 feet of Interstate Highway 75, a highway in the interstate highway system. The property is approximately 1.5 miles south of the Daniel Road interchange on the east side of the highway. The Lee County Comprehensive Plan, which has been enacted by the county, designates the area in which real property is located as "Airport Commerce." Under the plan, this land is approved for "mixed use developments consisting of light manufacturing or assembly, warehousing and distribution facilities; offices; ground transportation and airport related interconnection activity; and hotels/motels, meeting facilities and other hospitality services." The Petitioner's application to Lee County for a permit to erect the proposed sign on the property was approved. The county permit shows that the property is zoned "agricultural." If the "agricultural" zoning classification is violated, the county permit becomes void. The application for permit to the Department was denied because Section 479.111(2), Florida Statutes, allows signs within a controlled portion of an interstate highway only if the sign is within a commercial-zoned area, an industrial-zoned area, a commercial-unzoned area or industrial-unzoned area. In this case, the proposed sign was to be placed in an agriculturally zoned area.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, KOA Campground, violated Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, by placing a sign facing a state road right-of-way without a valid sign permit. Whether Petitioner, KOA Campground, violated Section 479.07(9)(a)2, Florida Statutes, by placing a sign in violation of the DOT spacing rule. Whether Petitioner, KOA Campground, violated Section 479.04(1), Florida Statutes, by operating outside the city limits without a state license. Whether Petitioner, KOA Campground, is entitled to the issuance of a sign permit for the east-facing sign located 678 feet West of Seven Dwarfs Lane on US Highway 192, in Osceola County, Florida. Whether Respondent, Peloso, violated Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, by placing a sign facing a state road right-of- way without a valid sign permit. Whether Respondent, Peloso, violated Section 479.07(9)(a)2, Florida Statutes, by placing a sign in violation of the DOT spacing rule. Whether Respondent, Peloso, violated Section 479.07(5)(a), Florida Statutes, by failure to display a current valid sign permit tag. Whether Respondent, Peloso's state permit number AG636-10 become invalid and subject to revocation by the DOT.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is the state agency charged with the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, which regulates outdoor advertising structures along the state highway system. Petitioner, KOA Campground, as Lessor, and Respondent, Arthur S. Peloso, as Lessee, entered into a Lease for space to erect a sign structure to be located approximately 0.67 mile east of State Road 535 (north side) adjacent to U.S. 192 in Osceola County on March 1, 1982. The real property described in said Lease covered an area approximately 100 feet in width adjoining the Peloso property to the east. On the property encompassed in said Lease, dated March 1, 1982, KOA erected some time in 1982, at its expense, an existing sign on its property which was constructed to face east. The message on the sign related to the KOA Campground which is on the same site. As such, it is an on-premises sign not requiring a DOT sign permit so long as the message on the sign relates to the business being conducted on the property. On the land adjoining the property described in said Lease, Peloso erected a sign, at his own expense, on his property in 1982 which was constructed to face west. At that time in 1982, Peloso applied for and received two outdoor advertising permits nos. AG636-10 and AG637-10, from the DOT. AG636-10 was issued for the west facing sign and AG637-10 was issued for the east facing sign. AG636-10 was promptly posted on the west facing sign which presently advertises Peloso's restaurant in Kissimmee, Florida. Said permit has remained posted on that sign continuously to the present time. AG637-10 was lost by Peloso. Thereafter, a request was filed by Peloso to replace permit AG636-10 rather than AG637-10. As a result, permit AX346-35 was issued to replace AG636- 10, and no replacement for AG637-10 has been issued. AX346-35 has now been posted along with AG636-10 on the west-facing sign owned by Peloso. Peloso has continuously paid the renewal fees relating to both permits issued. Pursuant to paragraph 6 and 7 of the Lease, dated March 1, 1982, the 100 foot strip of land owned by KOA was leased to Peloso and states: "6. Said premises are hereby leased for use by the lessee as a site for billboard advertising sign only, and for no other use or purposes unless the lessor gives his written consent thereto, and shall be operated at all times in a lawful manner. The lessee shall carry all necessary insurance, procure all necessary permits and licenses, and build and construct all signs in strict conformity with applicable Florida Statutes; and the lessor shall not be liable or held responsible therefor in any manner whatsoever. The parties agree that the lessee shall position his sign so that it faced in the general direction of west and the lessee shall provide space for the lessor to place a sign in the vicinity thereof also, so that it faces in the general direction of east." The Lease does not set forth a specific purpose on its face, but was requested in order to accommodate setback requirements under local law, and possibly to allow the sign to be erected to overhang the KOA boundary line. Said Lease has not been terminated and is still in full force and effect. On October 14, 1988, Peloso filed applications for two outdoor advertising sign permits "to rebuild and improve existing sign structure", which were treated as an amendment to the existing permits and tentatively approved by DOT. KOA filed an application for an outdoor advertising sign permit for the east-facing sign on its property sometime in the Fall of 1989. Peloso is the holder of the two existing permits (AG636-10 and AX346- 35), and is entitled to maintain permits for both an east-facing and a west- facing sign in the vicinity of the present Peloso restaurant sign (AG636-10). KOA has whited-out the copy on its sign and presently is not advertising any business (on-site or off-site) on the sign. Peloso has ceased construction on his new sign structure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Alleged Violations of the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code and Notice to Show Cause, dated June 30, 1989, directed to KOA Campground be dismissed, so long as its sign qualifies for exempt status under the provision of Section 479.16(1), Florida Statutes. The Alleged Violations of the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code and Notice to Show Cause, dated October 20, 1989, directed to Arthur S. Peloso be dismissed, upon compliance with Section 479.07(5)(b), Florida Statutes, (lost tag). Thereafter, DOT should process the Amended Application of Peloso, dated October 14, 1988, relating to the construction of a new sign structure and ensure compliance with all applicable statutes and rules. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Buildi.ng 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Petitoner, KDA Campground. Paragraph 1- Accepted in substance except the statement the original permit was issued "for the existing sign on KOA property...", which is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 2- The first sentence is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. The second sentence is Accepted. Paragraph 3- Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4- Rejected. Paragraph 5- Accepted in substance. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent, Arthur S. Peloso. Paragraphs 1-9. Accepted in substance. The Department of Transportation did not file proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Muntzing, Esquire 1102 Oak Street Post Office Box 421966 Kissimmee, Florida 34742 Philip W. Watson, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson Firstate Tower, 17th Floor Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32302 Rivers Buford, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that respondent, Department of Transportation, enter a final order denying the application of petitioner, Lamar Advertising Company, for a sign permit. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of March, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1985.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's outdoor advertising sign permit applications should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the parties' Prehearing Stipulation (which contains a "Statement of Admitted Facts"),1 and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner's Signs On or after July 21, 1998, Petitioner filed outdoor advertising sign permit applications for two signs2 (Petitioner's Signs) located on property it owns on the west side of Interstate 95 (I-95) within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of I-95, one-half mile south of Northlake Boulevard, and north of Blue Heron Boulevard, in Palm Beach County, Florida. This area of I-95 has been a part of the interstate highway system since at least August of 1967. Palm Beach County is the local governmental entity with authority to adopt a comprehensive land use designation for the property on which Petitioner's Signs are located (Property). From the time the Signs were erected in 1987, through the present, the Property (on which Petitioner conducts no business activities) has been zoned or designated for residential, not predominantly commercial or industrial, use. Petitioner's Signs, each of which exceeds eight square feet in area, contain advertising messages for Petitioner. The messages can be read without visual aid by motorists of normal acuity traveling on I-95. Previously, the Signs indicated the Property was for sale, but they have not been used for such purpose since December 14, 1994. The Department denied Petitioner's permit applications because the Signs are located in an "unpermittable land use designation" inasmuch as the Property is designated for residential, not predominately commercial or industrial, use. Other Signs Subsequent to December 8, 1971, the effective date of Chapter 71-971, Laws of Florida,3 the Department has issued and/or renewed outdoor advertising sign permits for other signs located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the interstate or federal-aid primary highway system, notwithstanding these signs' location in areas not designated primarily for commercial or industrial use. Signs Assigned Permit Numbers AZ346-35, AZ347-35, AY935-35, AY936-35, AY937-35, and AY938-35. Among these signs are six signs (three sign structures with two facings each) that, like Petitioner's Signs, are located on the west side of I-95, south of Northlake Boulevard and north of Blue Heron Boulevard, in an area designated for residential, not predominantly commercial or industrial, use. The Department has annually renewed the sign permits for these signs since at least 1973. The 1974 annual permit renewals are the earliest records the Department has for these signs. (The Department has neither an original, nor a copy of, the initial applications or the initial permits, for these signs.) The signs currently have the following permit numbers: AZ346-35, AZ347-35, AY935-35, AY936-35, AY937-35, and AY938-35. According to Palm Beach County Building records, these signs were all constructed before January 27, 1972, and four of the signs were constructed in the late 1960's (in or sometime after July of 1968). These signs are in the same location as when originally permitted, and that location has been zoned or designated for residential use since before the time the signs were constructed and permitted. Signs Assigned Permit Numbers AN661-35 and BG910-35 Two signs (one sign structure with two facings) located within 660 feet of the westerly right-of-way of I-95, south of Forest Hill Boulevard and north or Seventeenth Avenue North, in Palm Beach County, Florida, were permitted by the Department in August of 1984. This area of I-95 has been a part of the interstate highway system since at least April of 1976. The two signs were erected after August of 1984. They currently are assigned permit numbers AN661-35 and BG910-35. The initial outdoor advertising sign permit applications that were filed with the Department for these signs (in August of 1984), unlike the applications submitted by Petitioner in the instant case, indicated that the signs were to be located in an area that was "commercial or industrial zoned." On each application, the applicant "certif[ied] that the statements made and the information given in this application [were] true and correct." In accordance with the Department's standard operating procedure, a review of these applications was conducted by Department staff and the information contained therein, including that relating to the zoning of the area in which the signs were to be located, was determined to be accurate. Accordingly, the permits were issued. Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing in this case, it appears that, contrary to the determination made by the Department, the zoning information provided by the applicant was inaccurate inasmuch as the area in which the signs were to be located was actually (and still is) an unzoned residential area. Signs Assigned Permit Numbers AX549 and AX550 State Road 80 in Section 35, Township 43 South, Range 40 East, in Palm Beach County, Florida, has been part of the federal-aid primary system since at least January of 1973. There are two signs (one sign structure with two facings) that are located within 660 feet of the right-of-way of State Road 80 in Section 35, Township 43 South, Range 40 East, in Palm Beach County, Florida, in an area not designated for predominately commercial or industrial use (State Road 80 Signs). These signs currently are assigned permit numbers AX549 and AX550. The Department issued sign permits for the predecessors of the State Road 80 Signs (Predecessor Signs) on April 15, 1979. An examination of the initial outdoor advertising sign permit applications filed with the Department (in April of 1979) for the Predecessor Signs reveals that each application has the entry "8/67" in the space for showing the "date [the sign is] to be erected,"4 and has the handwritten notation, "grandfathered," on that portion of the application to be filled out by the Department. The Department uses the term "grandfathered" to refer to signs which existed legally prior to a change in the law rendering them nonconforming, but which, notwithstanding such change, are still treated as lawful (albeit nonconforming) signs. The Department has a policy of permitting or "grandfathering" signs that existed (in compliance with the then- existing law) prior to the effective date of the aforementioned January 27, 1972, agreement between the State of Florida and the United States Department of Transportation (which is referenced in Section 479.111(2), Florida Statutes), provided no changes are made to the signs. The State Road 80 Signs are in the same general location (but not the identical location) where the Predecessor Signs were located, and all of the property in that general location is now, and has been since before the Predecessor Signs were permitted, zoned or designated for some use other than commercial or industrial. In 1986, the property on which the Predecessor Signs were located was acquired (for $42,000.00, excluding attorney's fees and costs) by the Department as a result of a settlement reached by the Department and the property owner in an eminent domain proceeding. In recommending (in writing) that the Department settle the matter, the Department's trial attorney stated the following with respect to the Predecessor Signs: The settlement figure of $42,000.00 dollars is a reasonable Award in light of the real estate and severance damages. Due to the specific difficulties involved in this matter, for instance the importance of a particular type of advertising sign combined with the fact that this advertising sign was grandfathered in and since the sign has been put up, restrictions had occurred in Palm Beach County which would have prevented a similar sign from being put up. Accordingly all parties had to work within the constraints of the original sign location with slight adjustment and renovation in order to make effectively a new sign into a renovated sign for purposes of seeking whatever variance. As the trial attorney had suggested in his written recommendation, the Predecessor Signs, with the Department's approval, had been removed from their original location and reconstructed (in or about June of 1986) on a part of the property that was not subject to the eminent domain proceeding. Signs Along the Florida Turnpike State Road 91 (the Florida Turnpike) in Palm Beach County, Florida, was designated as a part of the National Highway System by the United States Congress on November 28, 1995. It thereupon was deemed by the Department to be a part of the federal-aid primary highway system in the state. Before November 28, 1995, starting at least as early as 1973, the Department had issued at least 95 sign permits for signs located in Palm Beach County, which were within 660 feet of the Florida Turnpike right-of-way and not located in areas zoned or designated for commercial or industrial use at the time the permits were issued. Many, or all, of these signs are still in areas not zoned or designated for commercial or industrial use. With the concurrence of the Federal Highway Administration, the Department did not require signs along the Florida Turnpike to meet the requirements applicable to signs located along federal-aid primary highway system roadways, provided a permit application for these signs was received by the Department prior to July 1, 1996. A sign located within 660 feet of the edge of the westerly right-of-way of the Florida Turnpike, south of Forest Hill Boulevard and north of Lake Worth Road (State Road 802), in Palm Beach County, Florida, was issued outdoor advertising sign permit number BM818 by the Department on May 28, 1996. The application for this permit had been received by the Department on May 8, 1996. At the time of the issuance of the permit, the sign was located in an area not zoned or designated for commercial or industrial use. The sign is presently in the same location, which continues to be not zoned or designated for commercial or industrial use.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying Petitioner's applications for outdoor advertising sign permits for his Signs. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1999.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, for having no identification on the sign, no valid lease for the sign and no current permit tag.
Findings Of Fact A violation notice was issued to the Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising Company, on June 18, 1976, citing a sign located at .23 miles south of John's Road on U.S. 1, with copy "TOBYS". The violation not ice stated that the Respendent was to violation of Section 479.07(4), Florida Statutes, with no current tag, with the lust tag being 1971; Section 479.07(7), Florida Statutes, with no identifier; Section 479.13, Florida Statutes, with no valid lease. The latest permit tag affixed to the sign is dated 1971. A photograph of the sign taken on the 20th of April, 1977, showed that there was no identifier on the sign. An identifier is the imprint showing the owner of the sign. Subsequent to the taking of the photograph, an identifier was added to the sign showing the Respondent as owner. The Respondent entered into evidence an application for outdoor advertising permit dated March 2, 1977. A sign lease agreement was entered into evidence by the Respondent dated the 15th day of February, 1977, alleged to be a lease agreement from the Florida Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists for a lease for a term of five years beginning January 1, 1973 and expiring December 31, 1977, for the subject billboard sign. There was confusion as to the ownership of the sign and the sign stood without permit tags subsequent to 1971. No application for permitting of the sign was made until the Respondent made an application for a permit as indicated in the foregoing findings of fact in 1977. The proposed Recommended Order of the Respondent has been considered in the preparation of this order.
Recommendation Remove the subject sign inasmuch as the sign is illegal and in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 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: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William D. Rowland, Esquire 115 East Morse Boulevard Post Office Box 539 Winter Park, Florida 32789
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's predecessor in interest leased property along the I-275 in October 1973 (Exhibit 3) and erected an outdoor advertising sign thereon. One witness testified that at the time this sign was erected in 1973 there was no other sign within 500 feet of this sign. The sign was erected within the city limits of Tampa, Florida and no permit other than a city building permit was required for this sign. In 1974 DOT required permits for all signs including those located within city limits, but no fee was collected for the permits issued for signs within the city limits. This regulation was not enforced by DOT until 1976- 1978, although in 1974 DOT had advised sign owners that permits were required for all signs and how they were to apply for permits for those signs located within the city limits (Exhibit 4). In 1975 National Advertising Company, in accordance with DOT instructions for obtaining permits for signs located in incorporated areas, submitted a renewal application in which it listed the sign located within 500 feet of Petitioner's sign (Exhibit 5). When no permit was issued by DOT, National Advertising Company, by letter dated September 1, 1977 (Exhibit 6), called to DOT's attention that they had not been issued permits for signs within city limits for which they had applied. Application for a sign permit for their sign along the I-275 located within 500 feet of Petitioner's sign was submitted by National Advertising Company on 31 March 1980 (Exhibit 7) and approved by DOT. This application showed the sign to have been erected prior to 1972. At this hearing Petitioner introduced as Exhibit 1 a copy of an Advertising Sign Permit application dated 9-1-76 executed by its predecessor in title, Martin Outdoor Advertising Company. The only indication on this application that it was received by Respondent is a received stamp dated April 15, 1980. During the period 1976-1979 considerable confusion existed in the outdoor sign industry respecting permits for signs and particularly for those signs located within city limits despite notification to sign companies (Exhibit 4). In an effort to clarify the situation, Respondent sent out circulars with the annual renewal notices advising all sign owners that signs along Interstate and Federal Aid Primary Highways within incorporated towns and cities required permits. In the circular dated December 18, 1978 (Exhibit 8), sign owners were told to submit applications for all unpermitted signs prior to February 17, 1979, and that failure to do so could result in the removal of the unpermitted signs. This was followed up by another circular dated October 31, 1979 (Exhibit 9) in which the deadline for applying for permits for those unpermitted signs was extended to January 1, 1980. Neither of these circulars which were enclosed with renewal notices were delivered by Petitioner's mail room to Petitioner's real estate section. Instead, they were forwarded to accounting with renewal notices. Upon an inspection of signs along the I-275 in March 1980, Petitioner's sign was observed without a permit and in violation of the spacing requirements. Notice of alleged violation dated 3 April 1980 was forwarded to Petitioner (Exhibit 10). Petitioner then applied for a permit for the sign which was disapproved and request for this hearing followed.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's applications to erect a steel monopole which would support a two- sided outdoor advertising sign to be located west of Interstate Highway 95 (I-95), 2,244 feet north of I-95's intersection with Indrio Road, St. Lucie County, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters Petitioner POZ Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (POZ), is a corporation engaged in the business of erecting and maintaining outdoor advertising signs. The principals of POZ are Richard Pozniak and his wife, Barbara. Respondent, Department of Transportation (Department) is a state agency charged with, inter alia, the responsibility to regulate outdoor advertising, under the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code. On February 17, 1997, POZ applied with the Department for permits to erect a monopole sign which would support a two- sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 2,244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road, St. Lucie County, Florida. The Department reviewed the applications, and on February 20, 1997, gave notice to POZ that the applications were denied because the "[s]ite is within 500 feet of a restricted interchange or intersection at grade (S. #14-10.006(1)(b)5, FAC)." POZ filed a timely request for a formal hearing to challenge the Department's decision, and these proceedings duly followed. Matters at issue POZ did not contend, and indeed offered no proof at hearing to demonstrate, that the proposed site was not, as found by the Department, within 500 feet of a restricted interchange or intersection at grade, as proscribed by Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code.2 Rather, as noted in the preliminary statement, POZ contends the Department should be precluded from applying the Rule's spacing provisions as a basis for denial of the requested permits based on a theory of estoppel or a theory of inconsistent application of the Rule's spacing requirements. POZ's estoppel theory To accept POZ's estoppel theory, one must accept, as offered, Mr. Pozniak's version of events which he avers transpired in 1990, when he conducted his outdoor advertising business through AdCon Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (AdCon).3 According to Mr. Pozniak, in 1990 he met with Vana Kinchen, then a sign inspector with the Department, to establish the proper location of a billboard that AdCon proposed to permit. Again, according to Mr. Pozniak, Ms. Kinchen helped him measure the site, and identified the same location at issue in this proceeding (2244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road) as an appropriate placement for a billboard. Following Ms. Kinchen's advice as to location, Mr. Pozniak avers that he applied for permits on behalf of AdCon to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located at the exact same site that is at issue in this proceeding. Those applications, according to Mr. Pozniak, were approved and Department tags issued; however, the sign was not erected within 270 days after the permit issued, as required by Section 479.05(3)(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and the permits became void. Having carefully considered the proof in this case, it must be concluded that Mr. Pozniak's version of the events surrounding AdCon's permitting activities in 1990 is less than credible. Rather, the persuasive proof demonstrates that AdCon's application for permits to erect a billboard at the site at issue in this proceeding were denied and it is most unlikely that Ms. Kinchen ever advised Mr. Pozniak that such site was a proper location for a billboard. Regarding AdCon's permitting activities in 1990, the proof demonstrates that on April 6, 1990, AdCon filed applications (inexplicably dated May 6, 1990) with the Department to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 3050 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road. Consistent with the requirement of Section 479.04(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the applications included a separate statement from the local government that the proposed signs complied with local government requirements. Those applications were approved and, on May 3, 1990, the Department's tag numbers BB-457-35 (for the north facing sign) and BB-458-35 (for the south facing sign) were issued. Subsequently, on November 9, 1990, AdCo filed applications dated November 7, 1990, with the Department to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 2,244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road (the location at issue in this case). Those applications were rejected by the Department on November 15, 1990, because they violated the spacing requirements of Section 479.07(9)(a)1, Florida Statutes, which prohibits the issuance of a permit unless the sign is located at least 1,500 feet from any other sign on the same side of an interstate highway. Notably, as the Department observed at that time, those applications conflicted with the previously approved applications of AdCon for the site located at 3,050 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road, and the permittee still had until January 28, 1991, to erect those signs. The applications were also rejected by the Department because they failed to include a statement from local government as required by Section 479.04(3)(b), Florida Statutes, that the proposed signs complied with local government requirements. Rather, what AdCon submitted was a copy of the local government approval it had secured for the location permitted by the Department on May 3, 1990. That documentation did not, as AdCon knew or should have known, meet the requirements for the new location. Clearly, the Department did not previously permit the site at issue in this case, and it is most unlikely that Ms. Kinchen ever affirmatively advised Mr. Pozniak as to the suitability of the site. In so concluding, Mr. Pozniak's testimony, as well as Petitioner's Exhibit 3 (what purports to be copies of applications, dated November 7, 1990, by AdCon for the site at issue in this proceeding, and purportedly approved by the Department) have been carefully considered. However, when compared with the other proof of record it must be concluded that Petitioner's Exhibit 3 is a fabrication,4 and that Mr. Pozniak's testimony on the subject is not credible or worthy of belief. POZ's theory of inconsistency Mr. Pozniak offered testimony at hearing concerning two outdoor advertising signs at the intersection of I-95 and State Road 60 which he opined did not conform with the Department's spacing requirements and, therefore, represent inconsistent application of the District's rule. The persuasive proof is, however, to the contrary. The first sign, located within 500 feet of the interchange, was in existence when the Department's "ramp rule" regarding spacing requirements became effective and, accordingly, its presence was grandfathered. However, at some time following the enactment of the ramp rule, the owner replaced the sign. At that time, the sign became nonconforming and the Department, as soon as it became aware of the nonconformity, commenced an action to secure the sign's removal. The other sign alluded to by Mr. Pozniak, and identified in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1, is owned by Division Street, Inc., and, contrary to Mr. Pozniak's testimony, that sign complies with the Department's spacing requirements and was properly permitted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the subject applications for outdoor advertising sign permits. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997.
