Findings Of Fact Interstate Highway 95 (I-95) and State Road 16 (SR 16) intersect in St. Johns County, Florida. There is an interchange located at the intersection of I-95 and SR 16 in St. Johns County. The sign in question is the northernmost of three signs constructed by Respondent on properly zoned private property owned by Charles Usina located southwest of the above interchange and adjacent to I- 95, fifteen feet from the DOT right of way. There is an entrance ramp southwest of the interchange that permits traffic traveling eastbound on SR 16 to enter the southbound lane of I-95. Prior to submitting sign applications to DOT, Respondent's President, Robert Harry, met with Helen Hession at the interchange. Ms. Hession is a Property and Outdoor Advertising Inspector employed by DOT in its District II. Mr. Harry requested the meeting with Ms. Hession to obtain her interpretation of where to begin measuring along the southbound lane of I-95 under DOT's "500 foot rule." At that meeting, Ms. Hession gave her interpretation as to how to locate the point of beginning measurement according to Rule 14-10.009 F.A.C. as enforced by DOT through Section 479.02(1) F.S. The relevant language of Rule 14-10.009 F.A.C. provides: Outside incorporated towns and cities, no structure may be located adjacent or within five hundred (500) feet of an interchange, intersection at grade, or rest area. Said five hundred (500) feet shall be measured along the interstate from the beginning or ending of pavement widening at the exit from or entrance to the main-traveled way, or an interstate highway. Mr. Harry had been in the business of outdoor advertising for many years, but this was his first experience with this type of measurement using the "500 foot rule" at this type of interchange. Mr. Usina was present with Mr. Harry and Ms. Hession for their pre-application meeting on January 19, 1991. At that time, Ms. Hession indicated the point of beginning for them to measure from in order to utilize the "500 foot rule." Ms. Hession testified consistently and credibly that she had told Mr. Harry and Mr. Usina that the point to begin measuring the 500 feet pursuant to the rule was at the southern tip of the "gore" located between I-95 and the southbound entrance from SR 16. The "gore" is an asphalt triangle marked with white lines that is widest at the northern end where vegetation grows between the southbound lane and the entrance. According to her testimony, Ms. Hession stood in the middle of the gore, facing south, and stated that, under the rule, the measurement should start at the point of the triangle. Ms. Hession illustrated her formal hearing testimony by marking "Point 3" on Joint Exhibit 12, a demonstrative sketch of the interchange and environs, to show the location she had indicated to Mr. Harry and Mr. Usina as the point of beginning. Mr. Harry and Mr. Usina testified equally credibly and consistently that during their pre-application meeting, Ms. Hession had indicated to them that the point to begin measuring was located at the northern end of the gore, or the place at which the vegetation and the asphalt met. For purposes of illustration, they identified the point that Ms. Hession indicated during their pre-application meeting as being "Point 2" on Joint Exhibit 12. While it is clear that Mr. Harry was not seeking Ms. Hession's personal interpretation of "the 500 foot rule," but was seeking the agency's interpretation of the rule it has promulgated and is charged with administering, it is equally clear that Ms. Hession and Mr. Harry never had a meeting of the minds on the exact location that she told him to begin his measurements. Ms. Hession was in her bare feet and unwilling to move around with Mr. Harry and Mr. Usina on the roadway during part of their meeting, and Mr. Harry and Mr. Usina are not entirely consistent as to where everyone was standing at crucial times during their discussion. It is easy to see how a misunderstanding occurred. Mr. Harry made the measurements for Respondent's sign permit application beginning at "Point 2," the northern end of the gore where the end of the asphalt gore meets the vegetation between the entrance and the highway. This location is over 400 feet closer to the interchange than the point Ms. Hession testified she had indicated to Mr. Harry. On January 29, 1991, Respondent filed an application for a DOT permit to construct the sign in question and for the two other signs. The application for the sign in question stated that the sign would be located on private property adjacent to the southbound lane of I-95, fifteen feet (perpendicular measurement) from the right of way and .15 miles from the nearest intersection. Simple arithmetic shows .15 miles equals 792 feet. The sign in question was not actually in existence at the time the application was reviewed and approved. For purposes of DOT review and approval of Respondent's permit application, Mr. Harry had placed stakes bearing the FCOA initials on the DOT right of way at locations parallel to where he intended to erect the signs on Mr. Usina's property. 2/ When reviewing Respondent's application prior to permit approval, Ms. Hession did not rely on the location stated in the application, (.15 miles from nearest intersection), but made her own on-site measurements. She measured using a Distance Measuring Instrument (DMI) mounted in Bartley (Bob) Burch's truck. Mr. Burch drove the truck and observed the stakes but did not participate in making the measurements. Use of the applicant's stakes and DOT's own measurements is standard operating procedure for DOT in reviewing/approving permit applications because sometimes the applicants' measurements as made or as stated on the application are incorrect. Use of the DMI is also standard operating procedure for DOT in this process. The DMI in question was calibrated for accuracy by Mr. Burch immediately prior to Ms. Hession taking the measurements. During her pre-approval application review, Ms. Hession measured the distances between stakes bearing FCOA initials and the distance of the first stake from the SR 16 overpass. She also used the southern tip of the gore ("Point 3") as a reference point when taking her measurements. She measured to the first stake from SR 16 and found the first stake to be .3 miles distant therefrom. (TR-44-45, 53) She reset the DMI at zero and then measured 1500 feet south to the next stake; again reset the DMI at zero and measured 1500 feet south to the third and final FCOA stake. During her pre-approval application review, Ms. Hession found the first FCOA stake to be in a location consistent with her understanding that "Point 3" was the correct point of beginning for applying the "500 foot rule." The first stake was 500 feet south of the tip of the gore ("Point 3"). Using the measurements obtained with the DMI during the pre-approval application review, Ms. Hession approved Respondent's application for a sign .3 miles (not the applied-for .15 miles) south of SR 16, the intersection of SR 16 and I-95. Simple arithmetic shows .3 miles equals 1584 feet. Subsequent to the pre-application meeting with Ms. Hession, but prior to the issuance of the DOT sign permits/tags, Respondent entered into a ground lease agreement with Mr. Usina 3/ and also entered into outdoor advertising lease agreements for the sign (two sign faces) involved here. 4/ These advertising lease agreements were later voided due to a stop work order issued by DOT (See Finding of Fact 19). Respondent has subsequently mitigated some of its loss therefrom by entering into other leases at lower figures. Respondent's six applications for outdoor advertising sign permits were approved by Ms. Hession and processed through DOT's main office in Tallahassee. Permits and tags were issued by DOT on February 22, 1991. Issuance of these permits and tags constitutes final agency approval of the application in question. The permits authorized the erection of three signs in the vicinity of the I-95 and SR 16 interchange at .30, .58, and .86 miles respectively south of the SR 16 intersection. Respondent has never challenged the fact that each of these signs was permitted significantly further south and further away from the intersection than each of the locations applied for: .15, .43, and .72 miles, respectively. Respondent has never protested that the permit issued for the sign in question was not for .15 miles (792 feet) from the intersection, but was for .3 miles (1584 feet) from the intersection. Respondent timely and properly affixed the permit tags to the three monopole structures, as they were constructed. After the permits/tags were issued, Respondent borrowed $25,000 to erect the monopole/sign and Mr. Harry obligated himself to repay that loan with interest. Respondent began construction of the sign in question after February 22, 1991. After a monopole support for the sign in question was installed, two of Respondent's business competitors notified Tom Brown, DOT's Outdoor Advertising Administrator for District II and supervisor of Ms. Hession and Mr. Burch, that Respondent's northernmost sign in this location had been placed too close to the intersection/interchange. Mr. Brown reacted by issuing the stop work order on construction on May 2, 1991, which was posted on Respondent's monopole. The stop work order stated that the structure was within 500 feet of an intersection, in violation of Rule 10-14.009 F.A.C., as enforced through Section 479.02(1) F.S. Mr. Brown subsequently notified Mr. Harry by letter that pursuant to the authority of 479.105(1)(a), the stop work order had been issued because of an alleged violation of Chapter 14-10.009(B) SPACING OF SIGNS (2)(b) F.A.C. which is enforced through Florida Statutes Chapter 479.02(1). Respondent completed the sign in question after the stop work order was issued. Subsequent to her approval of the sign permits, Ms. Hession was instructed by Mr. Tom Brown that her interpretation of the agency rule was incorrect and that the proper place to have begun measuring for purposes of the "500 foot rule" was where the outside edge of the interchange entrance lane disappeared into the outside edge of the through lane of I-95. Bob Burch, a District II Outdoor Advertising Inspector of equivalent rank with Ms. Hession, testified that he interpreted the rule in a manner identical to Mr. Brown's interpretation. For purposes of illustration, this location is marked as "Point 1" on Joint Exhibit 12. The testimony of Tom Brown as to why his interpretation should be considered the agency's interpretation of the rule is sketchy but together with the corroboration of Bob Burch that this interpretation has been the standard application, it is accepted that DOT, as an agency, has interpreted the "500 foot rule" language to mean that a sign may not be located within 500 feet of the point at which the outside edge of an entrance disappears into the outside edge of a through lane on an interstate highway. This interpretation ("Point 1," for purposes of the instant case) is also consistent with the language of the rule and is the most reasonable reading of that language. "Point 2" is not consistent with the language of the rule. "Point 1," Mr. Brown's and Mr. Burch's interpretation of the rule's point of beginning, is furthest from the intersection, at the beginning of the through lane for I-95. "Point 3," Ms. Hession's original erroneous interpretation, is next furthest from the intersection, at the tip of the gore. "Point 2," Mr. Harry's mis-understanding of Ms. Hession's erroneous interpretation is closest to the intersection, where the gore meets the vegetation. Naturally, any distance measured from Mr. Harry's understanding of the point of beginning would be further north than, and closer to, the interchange than would be locations measured from either of the other two points. Immediately after the stop work order was issued, the sign in question was inspected and measured by Ms. Hession. This time she measured its location using a 100-foot tape. She used SR 16 and its overpass as her starting point. SR 16 and its overpass are permanent markers. (TR-47-49) She and Mr. Burch found that the monopole in question had been erected several hundred feet north of the location at which they had previously found Respondent's first stake. The monopole as constructed was less than 100 feet south of the tip of the gore, "Point 3," and north of "Point 1". According to these after-the-fact measurements, Respondent's erected monopole is not 500 feet or more south of either "Point 3" or "Point 1" and it is not located .3 miles from SR 16, as specified in the permit or even .3 miles from Points 1, 2, or 3.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order affirming the May 2, 1991 notices, revoking the permit for the single sign in question, and ordering the removal of the sign within 30 days. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent's outdoor sign permit should be revoked because the original sign has been destroyed by an Act of God, as alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this sign permit dispute, Petitioner, Department of Transportation (DOT), seeks to revoke the permit for an off- premise outdoor advertising sign owned by Respondent, North Florida Pecan 1 & 2, Inc. (Respondent), on the grounds that the original sign was destroyed by a fire in June 1998, the newly rebuilt sign has lost its nonconforming status, and any rebuilt sign is now illegal. In response to these charges, Respondent contends that the fire that destroyed the sign was an act of criminal mischief or arson, rather than an Act of God, and thus the sign still qualifies for a nonconforming status. The sign in question is located 12.2 miles north of the Flagler County line on the west side of Interstate 95 (I-95) facing south, and is perhaps a mile or so south of the intersection of State Road 207 and I-95 (intersection) in St. Johns County, Florida. Respondent does not own the property where the sign is located, and it conducts no other business activities on that property. The property on which the sign is located is zoned Open Rural by St. Johns County (County), and it is not designated predominately for commercial or industrial uses by the County under the County's future land use map, comprehensive plan, or zoning ordinances. The sign is used to advertise Respondent's combination gas station and "open-area fruit market" located "just off" the intersection. The parties have stipulated that the sign was originally constructed more than 20 years ago before the current sign regulations became effective; under the present law, it would be a nonconforming sign and illegal. On May 27, 1998, a thunderstorm occurred in St. Johns County, resulting in between one-quarter and one-half inch of rainfall in the area. Due to a lightning strike on a tree, a 2-acre fire started approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the intersection in the vicinity of the sign. Although firefighters believed they had "knocked out" the fire within a day or two, the fire continued to smoulder under the dampened top layer of organic matter for several weeks until June 15, 1998, when it "worked its way back to the surface," broke out again, and cleared the containment line of the earlier fire. Aided by a light wind from the southeast and extremely dry conditions, the fire quickly spread eastward at the rate of 1,000 to 1,500 feet every 15 minutes and consumed several hundred acres, including the land on which Respondent's sign was located, before it was brought under control. That fire is commonly referred to as the Fort Peyton fire. In determining the cause of the Fort Peyton fire, forestry officials could not find any indicators of arson, and visual burn patterns clearly indicated that the new fire's origin was where the May 27 fire had begun. Therefore, it was officially classified as a "rekindle or breakout" of the May 27 fire, which was started by lightning. Put another way, the fire was the result of an Act of God, which is "the sudden manifestation and forces of nature." On either May 30 or June 5, 1998, depending on whether court or forestry records are accepted as being the most accurate, a fire began in Flagler Estates, which, "as the crow flies," lies approximately 12 to 15 miles southeast of the Fort Peyton fire. The Flagler Estates fire, however, was the result of an unattended illegal burn which was started by three individuals and went out of control. The fire was brought under control the same evening by firefighters, but only after some 450 surrounding acres were destroyed. The three individuals were later charged with arson. Respondent established that the prevailing winds during May and June 1998 were from the southeast and that "spoilers" or "floaters" (hot debris) from existing fires can sometimes float in the air and ignite new fires several miles away. Indeed, Respondent's investigator observed spoilers from inland fires floating through the air some 8 or 9 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean while he was fishing during that period of time. Accordingly, Respondent contends that it is just as likely that a spoiler floated northeastward from the Flagler Estates fire on May 30, 1998, and ignited the Fort Peyton blaze, some 12 to 15 miles away. If this theory is accepted, it would mean that the Fort Peyton fire would be attributable to arson, and not to an Act of God. The foregoing assumption has been rejected for several reasons. First, spoilers from the Flagler Estates fire did in fact ignite several spot fires in the area, but all of these spot fires occurred on the same day as the fire started and were within an eighth of an mile from the Flagler Estates perimeter. Second, it is highly unlikely that a spoiler would float up to 15 miles and then lie dormant for two weeks before igniting the Fort Peyton fire. Finally, the theory goes counter to the more persuasive evidence given by the supervising forester who investigated the Fort Peyton fire and concluded that it was an outbreak of the earlier fire that was started on May 27, 1998. After the sign was destroyed, Respondent rebuilt the sign at the same location using substantially the same materials that had composed the sign before it burned. However, the materials used to rebuild the sign were not part of the sign structure which was burned in the Fort Peyton fire. The new sign is the same size, shape, and height of the destroyed sign.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order confirming that the outdoor advertising sign maintained by North Florida Pecan 1 & 2, Inc., under sign permit number BR 252-55 is illegal and must be removed. The permit should also be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day 17th of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 J. Stephen Alexander, Esquire 19 Old Mission Avenue St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Robert M. Burdick, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela S. Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact In August of 1995 Champion International Corporation gave Petitioner permission to place a sign advertising The Outpost on property that Champion owned in Walton County. The sign was to be located at the corner of the south side of State Road 20 and Black Creek Boulevard. State Road 20 is a federal-aid primary road. Black Creek Boulevard is a county maintained road. Petitioner subsequently erected a 4' X 8' outdoor advertising sign on Champion's property. The sign was located on the south side of State Road 20, two miles east of U. S. 331 and twenty (20) feet west of the intersection of State Road 20 and Black Creek Boulevard. The sign was double-sided with east and west faces. On September 1, 1995, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent requesting a permit for the 4' X 8' sign already erected on the south side of State Road 20 and twenty (20) feet west of the intersection of State Road 20 and Black Creek Boulevard. On September 22, 1995 Respondent issued a Notice of Denied Application informing Petitioner that it could not have a permit for a sign on the south side of State Road 20 and twenty (20) feet west of the intersection of State Road 20 and Black Creek Boulevard. Respondent denied this permit for two reasons: (a) the location was zoned "agricultural" which was an un-permittable land use designation; and (b) the proposed sign was located on the state's right-of-way. After receiving the Notice of Denied Application, Petitioner removed the 4' X 8' sign. On or about January 29, 1996 Petitioner filed a sign permit application with the Walton County Building Department. The application was for an off- premises sign to be located fifty (50) feet south of State Road 20 along Black Creek Boulevard. The application states that: If the proposed sign is located along a federal aid primary road, a permit from the Florida Department of Transportation (904/638-0250) must be obtained before a Walton County building permit is issued. The applicant must obtain a letter from Walton County to submit to the Department of Transportation to submit with the application. Petitioner did not apply for a permit from Respondent for this proposed sign. The Walton County Building Department issued Petitioner a permit to erect the proposed sign on January 29, 1996. Petitioner subsequently erected a second sign on the south side of State Road 20, one foot off of the right-of-way, and about fifty (50) feet from the intersection of State Road 20 and Black Creek Boulevard. It was 8' X 8', two-sided, mounted in concrete, with red, black and white copy advertising The Outpost on both sides. The sign was placed so that it could be read by east and west bound traffic along State Road 20. Only the east face of the sign could be read from Black Creek Boulevard. The subject sign was located within 660 feet of the right-of-way of State Road 20. It did not qualify as an on-premise sign because the Outpost RV Park was located two miles away. Respondent never received a permit application from Petitioner for the 8' X 8' sign. There was no material difference in the location of Petitioner's previously removed 4' X 8' sign and the new 8' X 8' sign. On May 13, 1996 Respondent issued Notice of Violation No. 10BME1996110 to Petitioner for the west facing of the 8' X 8' sign. Respondent also issued Notice of Violation No. 10BME1996111 to Petitioner for the east facing of the same sign. Each Notice of Violation contained a location description for a sign which was the same as the location description contained in Petitioner's previously denied sign permit application. The basis for both violations was that neither sign had the permit required by Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes. The notices directed Petitioner to remove the sign structure within thirty (30) days. Respondent subsequently removed the 8' X 8' sign because Petitioner failed to do so within the prescribed time. Respondent's right-of-way on the north and south side of State Road 20 is the area that Respondent maintains which is approximately fifty (50) feet. Respondent's right-of-way map showing the maintained area is available to the public at Respondent's Right-Of-Way Office. In the past, Petitioner erected other signs along U. S. Highway 331 without obtaining a permit. Respondent issued a permit for at least one of these signs after Petitioner filed the appropriate application. Respondent required Petitioner to remove any sign that was not eligible for a permit. Respondent's inspector issued more than ten (10) notices of violation to owners of other outdoor advertising signs in the same general vicinity as Petitioner's 8' X 8' sign on May 13, 1996. These signs have been removed. There is a Reddick Fish Camp sign located on the south side of State Road 20 and west of the intersection of State Road 20 and County Road 3280. That sign is located six miles from the sign at issue here. Another sign has been nailed to a tree three-quarters of a mile west of the subject sign. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether these signs are illegal because they do not have a permit. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent issues violations to Petitioner when it erects an off-premises sign without a permit but allows illegal signs of other property owners to exist without issuing similar notices of violation. Even if Petitioner had filed a permit application for the sign structure at issue here, it would have been ineligible for issuance of a permit because the location's land use designation was agricultural. If the property had been zoned commercial or industrial, Petitioner would have been required to have a permit because the sign did not qualify for any exceptions to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner erected a sign with two faces in violation of Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 17th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul T. Davis 4576 Highway 3280 Freeport, Florida 32439 Andrea V. Smart, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transporation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the stipulations of fact entered into by the parties and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The two signs and four sign faces (hereinafter, the signs) which are the subject of these proceedings are owned by the Respondent and are outdoor advertising signs as defined in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. One sign is located on U.S. 1, 1.35 miles north of Industrial Road, Big Pine Key (DOAH Case Numbers 86-2294T and 86- 2295T) and the other sign is located on U.S. 1, 1.25 miles north of Industrial Road, Big Pine Key (DOAH Case Numbers 86-2296T and 86-2297T) The Respondent purchased the signs from the Daley Outdoor Advertising Company in 1984. The signs are adjacent to and visible from U.S. 1 in Monroe County. U.S. 1 or State Road 5, is a federal-aid primary highway. U.S. 1 was open for public use at the time the notices of violation were placed on the signs. All of the signs are located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of U.S. 1, State Road 5. The area in which the signs are located is zoned "GU". Mr. William Kenney is employed as the outdoor advertising administrator for the Department of Transportation, District VI. On May 29, 1986, Mr. Kenney inspected the signs and noticed that neither of the signs had a state outdoor advertising permit tag attached. At that time, Kenney placed a notice of violation on each sign face. After placing the notice of violation stickers on the signs, Kenney examined the Department of Transportation's office records pertaining to outdoor advertising signs and found no evidence of permit tags having ever been issued for the signs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued declaring that the signs involved in these cases are illegal and must be immediately removed. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of January, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Charles C. Papy, III, Esquire 201 Alhambra Circle Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Maxmedia Outdoor Advertising, Inc., owns and maintains a V- shaped sign located on State Road 551 (Goldenrod Road) in Orange County, Florida, north of State Road 50. State outdoor advertising sign permits were obtained for both sides of the "V" in May 1986. The applications for permit stated that the sign was 15 feet from the right-of- way. Sometime prior to June 1, 1989, Department of Transportation (DOT) Outdoor Advertising Inspector, Michael Dollery, inspected the sign in question. He found that no state permits were displayed and that the sign encroached on the state right-of-way. A follow-up inspection was conducted on September 15, 1989, and the same findings were made. In determining that the sign encroached on the right-of-way, the inspector utilized a DOT right-of-way survey map (Petitioner's Exhibit #4), prepared in 1987, approved on 5/12/88, and updated most recently on 5/8/89. The inspector also located a right-of-way survey marker in the field and photographed the sign in relation to the marker. Both the survey and photograph plainly indicate that approximately five feet of both sides of the "V" extend into the right-of-way. Since the sign has two sides and two permits, separate violation notices were issued. The two violation notices are the subject of Division of Administrative Hearings cases #89-3819T and #89-3820T. Respondent does not contest the DOT survey and did not object to its admissibility. He did not produce his own survey nor any basis for his contention that the sign was proper at the time of erection. In DOAH Case #89-3821T, the sign at issue is located within the incorporated limits of the City of Lake Mary in Seminole County, Florida, at an interchange of 1-4 and Lake Mary Boulevard. The sign is owned and maintained by Respondent, Maxmedia. It is "V" shaped, with the apex of the "V" pointing at Lake Mary Boulevard. It is within 660 feet of the interstate (I-4) and is approximately 850 feet from a 2-faced permitted billboard located across Lake Mary Boulevard. The sign is 20 feet high. DOT has no record of a permit for this sign, nor was one displayed at the time of inspection. DOT's District Outdoor Administrator claims that the sign is visible from the main travel-way of 1-4. DOT issued its notice of violation only for the west face of the sign, since that is the side which faces the interstate. As depicted on a DOT right-of-way survey (Petitioner's Exhibit #8), the offending face of the sign runs lengthwise, parallel to 1-4. Respondent claims that the sign was purposefully built only 20 feet high, instead of the more common 50 feet, so that it would not be visible from 1-4. The sign was placed to be read from Lake Mary Boulevard. Respondent submitted a series of photographs taken from 1-4 and from Lake Mary Boulevard, including the portion of Lake Mary Boulevard overpass over 1-4. The sign is distinctly lower than the other signs which are visible from 1-4. The sign is visible from Lake Mary Boulevard but is obscured by the tree line when viewed from 1-4. Even assuming that the subject sign structure could be viewed from 1-4, a passer-by on 1-4 would have to quickly turn and crane his neck to read the sign, given its parallel orientation. Respondent claims that the placement of the sign was based on a consultation, on-site, with DOT's former District Supervisor, Oscar Irwin, who concurred that the sign would not be an "Interstate 4 reader." The sign was permitted by the City of Lake Mary on October 17, 1984. According to the federal highway system map of Seminole County (Petitioner's Exhibit #6) Lake Mary Boulevard is not part of the federal-aid primary highway system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered requiring that the sign in Cases #89-3819T and #89-3820T be removed, and dismissing the notice of violations in Case #89- 3821T. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Attorney Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mac Davidson Maxmedia Outdoor Advertising Post Office Box 847 Winter Park, Florida 32790 Ben G. Watts, P.E., Interim Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact On November 4, 1982, the Petitioner, Enterprise Outdoor Advertising, Inc., submitted applications for permits for two signs facing Interstate No. 4 (hereafter I-4) near the intersection of I-4 and 50th Street in Tampa, Florida. The specific location of the proposed signs is described as: Sec. 205 E/B .02 F/W Interstate I-4 50th Street and I-4 Sec. 205 E/B .02 F/E Interstate I-4 50th Streetand I-4 Both applications were disapproved by the Department of Transportation on November 9, 1982. The two signs for which Petitioner sought permits were to be located on a piece of property owned by Mr. E. B. Rood (hereafter referred to as Rood property). The Rood property is located adjacent to I-4, east of 50th Street, which runs north and south. The west facing sign application (see Respondent's Exhibit 11) was denied by the Department of Transportation because of a conflicting existing sign, Permit No. 7716-12, held by Foster and Kleiser, Intervenor. Permit No. 7716-12 was for a westerly facing sign physically located on the Rood property, pursuant to a lease between Intervenor and E. B. Rood. (See Respondent's Exhibit 4.) On November 3, 1982, Mr. E. B. Rood provided written notice to Foster and Kleiser that he was cancelling the lease. By the terms of the lease, the Foster and Kleiser sign then had to be removed within 30 days. On November 9, 1982, when the Petitioner's application was denied, the sign erected pursuant to Permit No. 7716-12 was still physically standing on the Rood property. Sometime prior to December 3, 1982, the sign was removed by Foster and Kleiser and the Department of Transportation was notified that the sign had been dismantled. (See Respondent's Exhibit 9.) Subsequent to dismantling its west facing sign, the Intervenor, Foster and Kleiser, applied for and received a permit for a westerly facing sign on a piece of property adjacent to I-4 just west of 50th Street and the Rood property. This second piece of property, located west of the Rood property, is referred to as the Bize property. At the time Foster and Kleiser applied for the westerly facing sign permit on the Bize property, there were no pending applications for a conflicting sign, and the previous conflicting sign on the Rood property had been dismantled. The application filed by Petitioner for a permit for an easterly facing sign on the Rood property was denied because of a conflicting permit, No. AG558- Permit AG558-12 was for a sign on the Bize property which would face east adjacent to I-4. At the time of Petitioner's application on November 4, 1982, no sign had actually been erected pursuant to Permit No. AG558-12. Permit No. AG558-12 had been issued to Foster and Kleiser in February, 1982, pursuant to an application accompanied by a written lease containing the purported signature of Mr. John T. Bize, the named lessor. (See Respondent's Exhibit 6.) Mr. John T. Bize died on January 1, 1977, and, therefore, was deceased on February 19, 1982, the date of the lease submitted by Foster and Kleiser with its application for Permit No. AG558-12. The only witness signature appearing on the lease was that of Thomas Marc O'Neill. Mr. O'Neill did not observe or witness the lessor sign the lease and felt, at the time he signed, that he was witnessing the signature of Ronald L. Westberry, who signed the lease on behalf of Foster and Kleiser. At the time he signed as a witness, Mr. O'Neill was and continues to be an employee of Foster and Kleiser. Subsequent to its disapproval of Petitioner's application for an easterly facing sign permit, the Department of Transportation was informed by Petitioner of the invalid lease on which Permit No. AG558-12 had been issued. By letter dated November 17, 1982, the Department notified Foster and Kleiser of the invalid lease and gave Foster and Kleiser 30 days within which to correct the problem. On November 22, 1982, the Department received a new lease for the Bize property and sign permit AG558-12. The new lease contained the following addendum: Effective date of lease shall be the of [sic] closing of purchase of said property or erection of signs, which- ever is first. There was no further evidence of the actual effective date of the lease. The Department of Transportation has a policy of requiring, with an application for a sign permit, a lease or other written evidence that the landowner has given permission to use his property for outdoor advertising purposes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's two applications for outdoor advertising sign permits. DONE and ENTERED this 20 day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Houllis, Esquire 10525 Park Boulevard North Seminole, Florida 33542 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven L. Selph, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1441 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Mr. Paul Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent's outdoor advertising permits BU 839 and BU 840 became void pursuant to the provisions of Section 479.07(5)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On August 18, 1998, Petitioner issued valid state outdoor advertising permit numbers BU 839 and BU 840 to Respondent for a sign with two faces, one facing north and the other facing south, to be erected at a specified location on the west side of State Road 5, 2000 feet north of PGA Boulevard in Palm Beach County, Florida. Section 479.07(5)(a), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . If the permittee fails to erect a completed sign on the permitted site within 270 days after the date on which the permit was issued, the permit will be void, and the department may not issue a new permit to that permittee for the same location for 270 days after the date on which the permit became void. 1/ Petitioner adopted the following definition at Rule 14- 10.001(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, on June 28, 1998: (c) "Completed Sign", for the purposes of Section 479.07(5)(a), Florida Statutes, means the erection of the sign structure as described in the permit, as well as attachment of the facing to the structure, and the posting of a message to the facing. Petitioner asserts the permits became void by operation of law on May 16, 1999, because that date is 271 days from August 18, 1998, the date the subject permits were issued. As of May 16, 1999, no completed sign had been erected by Respondent on the permitted site as the term "completed sign" has been defined by Rule 14-10.001(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner notified Respondent on May 21, 1999, that the subject permits were void. No representative of Petitioner misled or lulled Respondent into inaction at any time pertinent to this proceeding. Palm Beach County, the local permitting agency, requires a "Special Permit" before an outdoor advertising sign can be erected within its jurisdiction. Respondent applied for such a Special Permit for the subject signs on March 10, 1998. Palm Beach County issued Respondent a Special Permit for the subject location, but imposed a special condition, to which Respondent agreed. The special condition required Respondent to remove one of its other signs worth approximately $100,000. In addition to the Special Permit, Respondent was required to obtain from Palm Beach County a building permit for this project. That building permit was issued May 14, 1998. Respondent applied to Petitioner for the two permits that are at issue in this proceeding on May 18, 1998. On June 16, 1998, Petitioner denied Respondent's application on the grounds that additional information was needed. After the additional information was supplied, the subject permits were issued on August 18, 1998. On November 15, 1998, Respondent finished the site work that had to be done before the sign could be constructed. The Palm Beach County building permit expired 160 days after it was issued. Respondent secured the renewal of that permit on January 20, 1999. Petitioner placed orders for the sign construction in February 1999. The structural components arrived at the permitted site on April 5, 1999. Between April 5 and April 9, 1999, a 25-foot deep hole was dug, into which the 47-foot long, 4-foot diameter steel monopole was lowered by crane, and six tons of concrete were poured to construct a foundation and support for the sign superstructure. On April 9, 1999, Palm Beach County approved the final inspection of the excavation and foundation. On April 13, 1999, the superstructure of the sign was lifted onto the steel monopole by crane and installed, thereby completing construction of the two-faced sign. 2/ The cost of this construction totaled approximately $50,000. On April 14, 1999, Palm Beach County issued a stop work order (red tag) to Respondent for failure to post permit and plans at the job site and because a subcontractor blocked traffic with a crane that was being used to erect the sign structure. This red tag prevented Respondent from doing any further work on the two-faced sign. Had Respondent violated the red tag, it would have been exposed to a civil penalty of $250 per day and misdemeanor charges. Shortly after it learned that a red tag had been issued on April 14, 1999, representatives of Respondent met with Palm Beach County building officials and disputed their rationale for the red tag. Believing that the red tag issue with Palm Beach County had been resolved, Respondent entered into contracts with advertisers for the respective faces of the two-faced sign, one on April 22 and the other on May 11, 1999. It would have taken less than a day to install advertising copy on these signs. Palm Beach County did not lift its red tag on these signs until July 21, 1999. On August 9, 1999, Palm Beach County approved the two-faced sign on final inspection. Respondent placed advertising copy on both faces of the sign on August 9, 1999.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that applies the doctrine of equitable tolling and declares permits BU 839 and BU 840 valid. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 this 28th day of December, 1999.
The Issue There are two separate issues in this case: (1) Whether Petitioner breached its contract with Respondent by not making payments for a sign lease, thereby resulting in the sign permit becoming invalid; and (2) Whether Petitioner constructed a roadside sign illegally, i.e., without a permit.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, SG Outdoor, is a company engaged in the business of outdoor advertising in Florida. Respondent is the State of Florida ("State") agency responsible for monitoring compliance with State and Federal laws relating to outdoor advertising. According to those laws, signs within 660 feet of primary or interstate roadways visible from those roadways are subject to advertising regulations. There is currently a 1,500-foot spacing requirement (up from 1,000 feet in 1984) between signs. Further, signs must be located on land zoned for commercial and industrial use. Petitioner owns two signs which are at issue in this proceeding. One of the signs is a single facing sign of wood construction with a seven-foot height above ground level. The sign is assigned Tag No. AU557. The sign is situated just off Interstate 4, .871 miles east of State Road 33 in Polk County, Florida. This sign will be referred to herein as the "Original Sign." The Original Sign was built in 1971 and was located, at all times relevant hereto, on land owned by Mrs. Ona Grimes until that land was purchased by the State in October 2002. Petitioner also constructed another sign at approximately the same location. This sign, referred to herein as the "New Sign," has a double-faced, single-metal pole and is considerably higher in height than the Original Sign. Both the Original Sign and the New Sign are located on property which DOT contends is zoned as "Pasture, with residence." However, Polk County did away with its zoning ordinance in March 2000 and replaced it with Land Use Districts. The current Land Use District designation for the site is Business Park Center (within the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern). There was no competent testimony at final hearing as to whether that designation constitutes commercial or industrial zoning for purposes of roadside signs. The Original Sign was purchased by Petitioner in 1991 and was located on the Grimes property. Petitioner entered into a Ground Lease with Grimes that had a term of 30 years at a payment of $1,500 per year. In 2002, DOT entered into negotiations with Grimes to purchase the property. When DOT purchases property on which a roadside sign already exists, DOT may take the sign by way of condemnation through eminent domain (sometimes referred to by DOT as a "Take"). In such cases, the State must reasonably compensate the sign owner for the taking of its sign. In the alternative, the State may assume the sign lease and become a lessor to the sign owner. In that case, the sign owner must make its lease payments directly to the State. On May 22, 2002, DOT sent a letter to Petitioner explaining that DOT was in the process of acquiring the right of way on which the Original Sign was located. DOT offered to purchase (or Take) the sign from Petitioner for $17,300. While that offer to Petitioner was pending, DOT went forward with the purchase of the Grimes property. The purchase agreement for the property was signed by Grimes on July 11, 2002. Four days later, a letter from DOT to Petitioner was issued which said: Subsequent to receiving agreement and signed ODA [out door advertising] disclaimer from the property owner, an offer has been made to SG Outdoor, Inc. for the purchase of the ODA structure. Negotiations are ongoing. However, the purchase of Grimes property did not occur immediately. Meanwhile, in August 2002, Grimes entered into an illegal lease with Lamar Advertising, giving Lamar the same rights it had already contracted away to Petitioner. Petitioner was unaware of the lease with Lamar at that time. Such a lease would have been in violation of the already-existing lease between Grimes and Petitioner. At almost the same time, a DOT memorandum indicated that DOT was still "involved in ongoing negotiations" with Petitioner concerning the sign. The Grimes property purchase (by DOT) finally closed on October 1, 2002, at which time DOT became the owner of the Grimes property. Because of this fact, Petitioner was supposed to make its annual lease payments to the State of Florida ("State") as the new owner. Stated differently, the State became Petitioner's new lessor. On October 14, 2002, Lamar Advertising filed a Sign Permit Application with the Polk County Building Division. The application was for approval of its sign on the Grimes property. The application included a copy of Lamar's lease with Grimes; the lease had a 10-year period and a payment of $4,000 per year.1 On July 8, 2003 (ten months after DOT purchased the property), Petitioner filed a permit application with Polk County for the New Sign. Petitioner did not, at that time, have permission from DOT to erect a new sign, but believed it could obtain that permission after the fact. Petitioner then went forward with the construction of the New Sign. Meanwhile, Petitioner sent Grimes a check in October 2003, for its lease payment for the period June 1, 2003, through May 30, 2004. By that time, the State already owned the Grimes property. A member of the Grimes family sent Petitioner's check back to Petitioner in January 2004, explaining that all payments should be made directly to the State. There is no evidence in the record as to whether Petitioner attempted to make a lease payment to the Department at that time or at any other time. In November 2003, DOT issued a certified letter to Petitioner addressing Sign Permit No. AU557 that said: On October 2, 2002, the above referenced parcel was purchased by the Florida Department of Transportation. Although the Department will honor an existing lease, it will not engage in any new lease agreements nor grant permission for the referenced sign to remain. Since any potential oral agreement with the previous owner has expired, the Department requests that the [Original] sign be removed. Clearly DOT was mistaken. Petitioner had a written, not oral, lease with the prior owner. In response, Petitioner sent DOT a copy of its Ground Lease with Grimes. At that time, Petitioner also asked for a meeting with DOT's acquisition director to continue negotiating a fair price for the Original Sign. Several months later (on July 9, 2004), DOT issued its Notice of Violation regarding the Original Sign. The notice said "that the outdoor advertising sign referenced above has been acquired by the Department" (rather than saying the Department had purchased the land). The notice directed Petitioner to immediately remove the sign from the premises. The notice was partially in error; DOT had actually acquired the land, not the sign. Petitioner was in breach of its lease with the State by failing to make lease payments as required by the lease which DOT had assumed. However, it is unclear as to whether, upon notice of receipt of the written lease, DOT had ever advised Petitioner to send its lease payments directly to the Department. The Notice of Administrative Hearing Rights attached to the DOT Notice of Violation indicates a deadline of 30 days from receipt of the Notice for filing such a request, i.e., on or about August 10, 2005. Petitioner responded to the Notice with another letter (dated July 14, 2009) explaining again that it had a valid lease with Grimes for the sign location. Petitioner's letter asked DOT to abate its violation notice and reinstate Petitioner's permit. It also stated that "[i]f the State decides not to acknowledge the Judicial process [the ongoing probate dispute with the Grimes family concerning the lease with Lamar] and still proceeds with the Notice of Violation, then upon receiving your next correspondence, we will exercise our privilege to request an administrative hearing." Petitioner contends that the quoted statement constituted its request for an administrative hearing. However, the plain reading of the statement indicates that it is a statement of future intent based upon future actions by DOT. DOT then issued a letter dated August 10, 2004, to Petitioner explaining that the permit for the Original Sign had been revoked. The letter directed Petitioner to remove the sign. The letter stated that if Petitioner does not do so, then DOT would have the right to remove the sign. (As of the date of the final hearing in this matter, the sign was still in place.) The August 10 letter, in response to Petitioner's July 14 letter, appears to be the "next correspondence" Petitioner had requested. The exercise of its right to an administrative hearing would, therefore, be due on or about September 11, 2004. On September 8, 2004, Petitioner sent a letter to Holschuh declining DOT's offer to purchase the Original Sign for $17,000. That offer had been made in May 2002.2 This letter suggests a counter-offer of $82,500 as the purchase price. The letter did not invoke Petitioner's right to an administrative hearing. Holschuh responded that she was not involved in acquisitions, and Petitioner should contact the district office (with whom Petitioner had previously negotiated). Instead of heeding Holschuh's directions, Petitioner then sent her another letter asking her to send the correspondence on to someone in the acquisition division. The new letter also repeats the counter-offer of $82,500. This letter did not invoke Petitioner's right to a formal hearing, either. About one year later, on October 6, 2005, DOT issued another Notice of Violation, this one addressing Sign Permit No. AU557a (which Holschuh at final hearing said referred to the Original Sign, although there was no "a" nomenclature on the July 9, 2004, Notice of Violation). Also, on October 6, 2005, DOT issued a Notice of Violation addressing Sign Permit No. AU557a#2, which Holschuh said referred to Petitioner's New Sign, even though no permit for the New Sign had ever been issued by DOT. The New Sign by this time had been completed and was being used for outdoor advertising. Petitioner understands the need for a permit to construct a new outdoor sign on the State road right-of-ways, but opined that it believed it could do so after the fact. Petitioner has only obtained approval from Polk County for erecting the sign, an event necessary for construction purposes, but irrelevant to DOT requirements. In the letter to DOT from Petitioner dated October 26, 2005 (and presumably accepted by DOT as Petitioner's request for a formal hearing), reference is made to Sign Permit No. AU557a#2, i.e., the New Sign. However, the letter addresses the Original Sign and its perceived value by Petitioner. It is patently unclear as to which sign is actually being addressed, but facts surrounding both signs were presented at final hearing and both have been addressed herein. Nonetheless, Petitioner's October 26, 2005, letter was submitted within 30 days of the latest Notice of Violation and was presumably intended to invoke Petitioner's right to a formal administrative hearing. This letter was then forwarded to DOAH by DOT in March 2009, for the purpose of conducting the hearing. (No evidence was presented as to why the DOT's cover letter and Petitioner's request for hearing were not submitted to DOAH until three-and-a-half years after the letter was written.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Transportation, reversing the revocation of Sign Permit No. AU557 and providing Petitioner, SG Outdoor, just compensation for that sign. Further, the final order should deem the newly constructed sign on the same site to be unauthorized and order its removal. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 19th day of November, 2009.
Findings Of Fact In 1968, the Respondent constructed a V-type outdoor advertising structure adjacent to 1-95, 1.66 miles north of SR 50 in Brevard County, Florida. This sign was permitted by the Department as a non- conforming sign in 1971 when the Department issued permit number 4410-10. When permit number 4410-10 was issued for this sign, the copy on the sign advertised Texaco. The sign has carried a Texaco advertisement continuously since 1971. In September of 1985, as a result of Hurricane Elena, the subject sign sustained wind damage which required repairs to be made to the sign. The wind damage caused by Hurricane Elena required the Respondent to expend the sum of $308.25 to repair the subject sign. This sum covered the cost of three replacement poles, nine bags of Sackcrete cement, and six replacement boards. The total depreciated value of the structural materials in the subject sign immediately prior to the wind damage inflicted by Hurricane Elena was $1,055.00. The sign which is the subject of this proceeding now stands at the location in question (adjacent to I-95, 1.66 miles north SR 50 in Brevard County). It displays the same sign permit that was issued by the Department in 1971 for this location. With the exception of the other face of the V-type structure, the nearest sign to the subject structure is 1,100 feet away.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Violation Notice issued on December 16, 1985, seeking removal of the Respondent's sign adjacent to I-95, 1.66 miles north of SR 50 in Brevard County, Florida, be DISMISSED; and it is further RECOMMENDED that the Notice of Intent to Revoke sign permit number 4410-10 be DISMISSED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 16th day of October, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 16th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 86-0371T 86-0452T Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as the sign retains its status as nonconforming sign. Second sentence is not a finding of fact. Ruling on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: 1.- 8. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 A. J Spalla, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in these causes is whether denial of Petitioners' outdoor advertising sign site permit applications by Respondent were correctly determined under Subsection 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (2003), on the basis that the sign sites were unzoned commercial/industrial areas; and on the basis that within attending factual circumstances, the sign site did not qualify as unzoned commercial/industrial areas as defined in Subsection 479.01(23), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying; documentary materials received in evidence; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003); and the entire record of this proceeding, the following relevant and material findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Tropical Landholdings, a Florida Corporation, was created in 1998 and purchased approximately 700 to 800 acres of land comprised of residential multi-family and commercial properties along Interstate 75 (I-75) in Punta Gorda, Florida. On September 8, 2003, Petitioner, Crown Advertising, Inc., of Belleview, Florida, submitted three outdoor advertising sign site permit applications to the Department for review. On September 23, 2003, the Department denied the three outdoor advertising sign site permit applications for the following reasons: (1) the sign sites were not permitted under the local land use designation of site (§ 479.111(2), Fla. Stat. (2003)); and (2) the sign sites did not qualify as unzoned commercial/industrial area. § 479.01, Fla. Stat. (2003). The sign site permit application forms used by Petitioners in these causes were composed and authorized by the Department. The form required the applicant to obtain and provide information regarding the proposed sign site, what is proposed to be constructed on the site, and where the proposed construction is to occur. The sign site permit applications also required the applicant to secure information from the appropriate local zoning official of the future land use designation and the current zoning of the proposed sites enacted by the local government's Comprehensive Plan and land use development regulations. This form required information from the local government as to whether the applicant is or is not in compliance with all adopted local ordinances. Permission to erect an outdoor sign structure on the identified sign site is subject to approval by the City. Petitioners complied with the requested information. The local government, the City of North Port, approved the three sign site permit applications in question and granted Petitioners permission to erect three outdoor billboard signs. This local grant of approval was then subjected to concurring approval by the Department. After receiving the sign site permits that were approved by the City, the Department engaged the services of a consultant to conduct on-site review and identification of: (1) the local government's designation for each proposed sign site; (2) the permitted uses of each proposed sign site (local drainage facilities, pipeline corridors, underground communication cables, electric transmission lines, and outdoor advertising signs); and (3) a review of adjacent and surrounding parcels. The consultant reported to the Department the factual circumstances attendant the three locally approved sign sites. It should be noted that the consultant did not render an opinion regarding the Department's approval or denial of the sign site permit applications. The sign sites in question were zoned under the local "land use designation" of the City of North Port's Ordinance 02-46, Section 53.146 (Ordinance 02-46), as a "utility industrial corridor." The zoned land was composed of strips of land measuring 25 to 70 feet in width on the west side and 160 to 170 feet in width on the east side. The "permitted governmental uses" of a parcel zoned as a "utility industrial corridor," included such uses as underground communication cables, electric transmission lines, and outdoor advertising signs. Ordinance 02-46, under the title "Prohibited Uses and Structures," specifically prohibits "all commercial and industrial uses." Based upon a review of all information provided by Petitioners, the local government, and its consultant, the Department first determined the three sign sites on which the subject signs were to be erected and located, prohibited commercial or industrial uses. The Department then determined, based upon an analysis of the materials provided by its consultant and the City of North Port, the three sign sites in question had not been zoned for commercial or industrial uses as a part of the local government's comprehensive zoning plan. Based upon (1) the prohibition of commercial or industrial uses and (2) no commercial or industrial zoning of the sign sites, the Department concluded these three sign sites were zoned "primarily to permit outdoor advertising," a prohibited function. The denials were required. Under the local land use designation of Ordinance 02-46, the City of North Port's permitted uses included local drainage facilities and a pipeline corridor. Under governmental uses designation of Ordinance 02-46, the City of North Port's permitted uses included underground communication cables, electric transmission lines, and outdoor advertising. However, Ordinance 02-46 specifically prohibits all commercial and industrial uses under the governmental uses designation. When questioned by Petitioners, Ms. Holschuh testified "that the Department's intent was to allow [sign] permits whenever possible and never prohibit the installation of billboards." From this specific statement of testimony, Petitioners argued that "implementing the intent the Department must look beyond the labels of the zoning and look at the actual primary uses allowed under those designations." (Emphasis added.) Ms. Holschuh disagreed with Petitioners' characterization of the Department's procedures and convincingly maintained that the Department based its denials on "sign site zoning" and factors considered for determining an "unzoned commercial/industrial area" as defined by statute. Continuing with its argument, Petitioners conclude "[T]he department . . . appears to be in conflict with Judge Barbara Staros' decision of February 16, 2004, in a rule challenge proceeding, where she analyzed the Sign Permit procedure under Section 479.07, Florida Statutes." In her Final Order, Administrative Law Judge Barbara Staros made a Finding of Fact in paragraph 30, stating: Once the local government zoning official certifies that the proposed sign identified in the application is in compliance with the comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, the Department does not go behind that certification to look factually at whether the zoning action was consistent with the comprehensive plan. Page 13. The procedures followed by the Department in this proceeding complied with Judge Staros Finding of Fact in paragraph 31, where she wrote: The Department uses the application and the information contained therein to determine whether a proposed sign location falls within the definition of a "commercial or industrial zone." If it does, [fall within] then the Department determines whether those designations were adopted as part of the local government's comprehensive planning efforts or were "primarily" adopted to permit outdoor advertising signs on that location. Page 30. Based upon it's receipt, review, and analysis of the specific facts provided by all parties of interest, the Department determined the sites where the signs were to be erected prohibited commercial or industrial use. The Department factually determined that no local zoning identified the sites as commercial or industrial. The Department concluded correctly and in accord with Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0052 that these three sign sites were zoned by the City of North Port, the local governmental entity, "primarily to permit outdoor advertising" contrary to sign site permit procedures under Section 479.07, Florida Statutes (2003). Based upon the evidence of record and considering the size of the sign site, the local government's zoning of the site, designated uses of the site, and prohibited uses on the site, denial of the sign applications was correctly determined pursuant to Subsection 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0052. Based on the testimonies of Ms. Holschuh and James Duff, who testified regarding his ownership, property taxes paid, and the investors' inability to use the property in question to their economic advantage, Petitioners failed to carry the burden of producing a preponderance of credible evidence to establish that the Department incorrectly and/or wrongfully denied Petitioners' applications for three sign site permits pursuant to Subsection 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0052.
