The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent?s Outdoor Advertising Permits should be revoked pursuant to section 479.08, Florida Statutes, because the associated sign has not remained substantially the same, has been disassembled and re-erected, or has been destroyed, as set forth in the Amended Notice of Intent to Revoke.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation regulates outdoor advertising signs located in proximity to the State Highway System, the Interstate, and portions of the Federal-aid Primary System. Green?s Wrecker Service, begun in 1947, was one of the first wrecker services in Alachua County. Mr. Allen Green was the owner and operator. There was no precise testimony as to when Mr. Green first erected the advertising sign at issue here, but Mr. Green?s daughter, Pamela, vaguely remembered that happening: Well, I was seven or eight years old. I remember Daddy and Grandpa going down there after they opened up the road. It was woods there and we used to play on our bikes and I remember my Grandmother coming out and sitting beside the road because she was scared we was gonna get onto 301 because it was always woods back there before, and we could ride and we didn?t have her bothering us, you know. So when the woods got cleared out to 301, then, you know, Granny was sitting out there and daddy and grandpa went down there and done something, put that sign up, I guess. Based upon Pamela?s current age and her recollection, it can be roughly calculated that the sign was put up over 40 years ago. It is a small sign, about three feet by six feet, and has the words “Green?s Garage” in red letters and a smaller “Pennzoil” logo in yellow, along with a large arrow pointing toward the business. The sign sits at the intersection of US Highway 301 and 165th Avenue, the business being located about a hundred yards down 165th Avenue. The sign is important to the business because, due to the trees, one cannot see the actual building or cars at the business location from US Highway 301 until one is already at the 165th Avenue intersection, where one can finally see them through the area that has been cleared out for the road. Mr. Green turned the business over to Pamela before he died, and she has operated the business ever since. She subsequently married Mr. Gary Keen. Mrs. Pamela Green Keen incorporated the business as “Green?s Garage and Wrecking Service, Inc.” There was no evidence as to when the subsequent provision of state law or local ordinance with which the sign fails to comply was passed, but the parties stipulated that the sign is nonconforming, so it is clear that the sign was lawful when erected but could not be put up today. The sign was permitted as a wooden sign with a back-to- back configuration and two supports. That configuration has never changed. The sign was assigned tag numbers BE893 and BE894 by the Department. These tags look like small license plates that are posted on the sign and must be visible from the main travel-way. Mr. Tom Simmons is a senior outdoor advertising inspector for Cardno TBE Consultants (Cardno TBE), a contractor for the Department. Cardno TBE manages the outdoor advertising program for the State of Florida. Mr. Simmons has been employed with them for 12 years, and, before that, performed a similar job for four years with the Department. Mr. Simmons oversees 16 counties in northeast Florida, including Alachua County. Mr. Simmons was very credible in his testimony. Mr. Simmons testified that he was aware of the sign: In the due process of traveling from point A to point B on 301, I had seen it before. Like I stated earlier, after you have been out here a long time like I have, when structures disappear and go away, you pick up on it because it?s something that you are looking for constantly. On September 7, 2011, Mr. Simmons took a picture of the sign. It was down on the ground and was not erect. Mr. Keen testified that shortly before this, he had been having problems with vandals. The windshield of his tow truck had been shattered by a man whose car had been towed to Green?s Garage. That man was caught and ultimately paid restitution. A vehicle had also been stolen from Green?s Garage in June, and Mr. Keen or his wife had requested increased sheriff?s patrols at the business address in August, as evidenced by records from the Alachua County Sheriff?s Department. Mr. Keen testified that people often became upset when their cars were towed and that some were vindictive and would resort to vandalism. He said it was an unavoidable consequence of the business, since he towed cars for the Sheriff?s Department and the Florida Highway Patrol. Mr. Keen testified that he goes down 165th Avenue to US Highway 301, right past where the sign is located, almost every day. His testimony that the sign was not down for more than a day is accepted. Mr. Keen?s first action was to look for signs as to who had knocked it down, but he could not find any evidence such as cigarette butts, or cans, or footprints, so he decided it would do no good to call the police. Mr. Keen re-erected the sign. He did not have to reassemble or add to the materials on the sign in any way, since it was still intact. He just put it back up. The Department issued its original Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit for Violation, dated October 26, 2011, alleging that the sign had been abandoned. Respondent denied this in its response to the Department and requested an administrative hearing. The Department did not request an administrative law judge within 15 days of Respondent?s request. Green?s Garage and Wrecker Service is substantially affected by the Department?s intended action to revoke the permits for the sign. If the permit is lost, the sign must be taken down and no new sign can be erected. Almost a year later, on October 18, 2012, Mr. Simmons took a picture of the sign which showed that it was back up in its original location. He testified that it appeared to be the same sign, constructed of the same materials as before. On March 28, 2013, the Department issued Green?s Garage an Amended Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit for Violation, alleging violations of three different provisions of the rules. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the sign remained substantially the same as it was on the date it became nonconforming. Even if it was determined that the sign did not remain substantially the same simply because it was down for a day or two, simply re-erecting the sign when no assembly or construction was required constituted reasonable repair and maintenance of the sign. The sign was never disassembled throughout the time relevant to this proceeding. Less than 60 percent of the upright supports of the sign were physically damaged at any time relevant to this proceeding. One pole was not damaged at all; the other had only very minor damage. The minor damage to one pole was not such that the normal repair practices of the industry would call for that pole?s replacement. Respondent never had an intention to abandon or discontinue the sign at any time relevant to this proceeding. The facts did not show that the sign structure ceased to exist. All the interrelated parts and material -- including the beams, poles, and stringers -- which were constructed for the purpose of supporting or displaying the message remained completely intact and never ceased to exist as an integrated structure.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the Amended Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit for Violation and allow the outdoor advertising permits to continue. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 30th day of July, 2013.
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a permit for an outdoor advertising sign should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Poz Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (Poz), filed an application dated June 19, 1996, with the Department of Transportation (Department) for an outdoor advertising sign permit. The application stated that the sign was to be located at I-95 approximately 2500 feet north of Midway Road in St. Lucie County, Florida. Additionally the application provided that the sign would not be located within city limits. The Department issued a Notice of Denied Application to Poz on July 16, 1996, stating the application was not approved because the “site is within 500 feet of a restricted interchange or intersection at grade," citing Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code. The Department uniformly interprets Rule 14- 10.006(1)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code. In the mid-80’s, the Department's central office sent out a diagram and instruction memo to all district staff explaining the measurement and distance requirements in Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)5. Based on the methodology used by the Department for measuring compliance with Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)5, the site of the sign proposed by Poz is within 500 feet of a restricted interchange. The area where I-95 crosses or intersects with Midway Road is called an interchange. Petitioner claims that the Department has approved other signs which are within 500 feet of a restricted interchange, namely, signs with permit numbers BM 097 and BM 096, located at the east side of I-95 and State Road 514; signs with permit numbers BM 819 and BM 820 located at the west side of I-95 and State Road 516; and signs with permit numbers BM 825 and BM 826 located at the west side of I-95 and State Road 514. The signs with permit numbers BM 096 and BM 097 are located within the city limits of Palm Bay according to the approved applications for those signs. According to the information contained in the Department’s computerized outdoor advertising location information, the signs with permit numbers BM 825 AND BM 826 are located within city limits. According to the information contained in the Department’s computerized outdoor advertising location information, the signs with permit numbers BM 819 and BM 820, are located within city limits. Petitioner also claims that the sign located at the interchange of I-95 and State Road 60 was within 500 feet of a restricted interchange. This sign is located in an unincorporated area of Indian River County. A sign was erected in this location in 1973 and was replaced with another sign at the same location in 1991. The county building permit for the restructured sign was issued conditioned upon the applicant receiving approval from the “State of Florida Right of Way Administration.” No evidence was presented to show that such approval was sought from or given by the Department. No evidence was presented to establish that the Department was aware that the sign had been restructured. Richard Pozniak, the husband of one of the owners of Poz, testified that a former sign inspector for the Department, Vanna Kinchen, had showed him how to measure for proposed sign sites. Ms. Kinchen rode out with Mr. Pozniak to a location about five miles from the interchange at issue and taught Mr. Pozniak how to measure from the interchange. Ms. Kinchen was not involved with the site at issue and was no longer a sign inspector at the time that Poz made the application for a permit of the site at issue. All interchanges are not constructed alike. Richard Pozniak and his wife, Barbara, measured the site which is at issue. Mr. Pozniak computed the distance from the interchange to the site by measuring 500 feet from the safety zone or gore area on I-95. The gore area is located on the inside of an entrance or exit ramp rather than along the outside of the widening of the pavement. In determining whether the site is within 500 feet of the interchange, the Department measures 500 feet beyond the widening of the entrance ramp onto I-95. The site proposed by Poz was located in the area before the widening of the ramp ends. A sign cannot be placed in the area. The logo program is a federally funded program. The requirements for the issuance of an outdoor advertising permit is different from the requirements for a business to display its logo in the logo program. In the logo program, the business is limited to displaying its logo on a Department sign structure located on the interstate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner, Poz Outdoor Advertising, Inc.’s application for a permit for an outdoor sign at I-95 and Midway Road in St. Lucie County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of May, 1997. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 23rd day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Pennington, Culpepper, Moore, Wilkinson Dunbar & Dunlap, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 34399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Attn: Diedre Grubbs, M.S. 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact U.S. 1 is a federal-aid primary highway and, in the vicinity of University Boulevard, is a divided highway, with parkway between north-and- southbound lanes. University Boulevard (SR 109) is not a federal-aid primary highway. Petitioner holds a lease on the property on which the proposed sign is to be erected and, in fact, already has a structure on this site and a permit for a north-facing sign on this structure. The proposed sign meets all DOT requirements except spacing. The structure on which the proposed sign is to be displayed is located on the east side of U.S. 1, 125 feet north of the intersection with University Boulevard. Lamar Dean Outdoor Advertising Company was issued a permit for a 14 by 48 foot sign along the east side of University Boulevard, 150 feet south of the intersection with U.S. 1. This sign faces west. That application for permit (Exhibit 8) shows the type highway to be U.S. 1, a federal-aid primary highway. A sign located on University Boulevard in Jacksonville which was not visible from a federal-aid primary highway would not require a DOT permit. This Lamar structure, which carries a Jack Bush-Toyota South copy, can easily be seen by persons in vehicles travelling on U.S. 1 and it is on the same side of U.S. 1 and within 500 feet of Petitioner's proposed sign. The Department of Transportation's (DOT) inspectors maintain inventories of all permitted signs. The criteria used by all DOT sign inspectors is to log any sign that can be seen and read from the primary highway. Actually, the Jack Bush sign can be seen by both north-and-southbound traffic on U.S. 1 when in the vicinity of University Boulevard but the northbound traffic passes closer to the sign. It is therefore carried by DOT as a south-facing sign.
The Issue Whether the outdoor advertising sign of Petitioner should be removed.
Findings Of Fact A notice of alleged violation of Chapter 479 and Section 335.13 and 339.301, Florida Statutes and notice to show cause were sent to Petitioner, Highland Court on August 18, 1977. The notice alleged that the subject outdoor advertising sign with copy, Highland Court, located 2.11 miles north of US 192; US 1 13 N Mile Post 2.11 was in violation of Chapter 479.07(2), and Rule 14- 10.04 having no current permit tag visible. The Petitioner asked for an administrative hearing which was properly noticed. Prior to the hearing the Petitioner stated that he was retiring and had no further interest in the sign. He stated that he was selling the business. Evidence was presented that the subject sign was erected without a permit from the Florida Department of Transportation. It has no current state permit tag attached. An application had been made for a permit but the permit was denied for the reason that the sign stands less than 500 feet from an existing sign to which is attached a current and valid permit.
Recommendation Remove the sign. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of August, 1978, 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 32301 Mr. Kenneth E. Gross, Manager Highland Court 24 North Harbor City Blvd. Melbourne, Florida 32935
Findings Of Fact The outdoor advertising sign which is the subject of this proceeding is situated 30-35 feet from the pavement on the northbound side of U.S. 1, approximately 170 feet north of 69th Street in the City of Marathon, Florida. The sign is visible to traffic on U.S. 1. U.S. 1 is a federal-aid primary highway, and it has been such since the subject sign was erected. This outdoor advertising sign is owned by the Respondent, T. L. Carpenter, who is also the owner of the property upon which the sign sits. The subject sign has not been issued an outdoor advertising sign permit by the Department, nor has any application for a permit been filed with the Department. This sign is less than 1,000 feet from an outdoor advertising sign which was erected on the same side of U.S. 1 by Jerry's Outdoor Advertising in 1983 or 1984. Permits numbered AK711-10 and AK710-10 have been issued by the Department to Jerry's Outdoor Advertising for its sign. The Respondent purchased the property where the subject sign stands in 1977. The sign had been erected by the prior owner, and the Respondent received the subject sign when he took title to the property. Nevertheless, the Respondent has never applied for an outdoor advertising permit for this sign. For some period of time after the Respondent bought this property and the subject sign, the Respondent advertised a health food store by copy on the sign. Presently, this sign advertises a restaurant. The copy, however, does not advertise an on-premise business. Due to the proximity of the permitted sign of Jerry's Outdoor Advertising, the Respondent may not now receive a permit for his sign at its present location.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the sign owned by the Respondent on the northbound side of U.S. 1, approximately 170 feet north of 69th Street in Marathon, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 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 2nd day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. J. L. Carpenter P. O. Box 2641 Marathon Shores, Florida 33052 Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue As to DOAH Case Nos. 14-4926 and 14-4927, the issues are whether the billboards identified in the notices of violation are located on the premises of Respondent's business and, thus, exempt from licensure; and, if not, whether the billboards are eligible for licensure pursuant to section 479.07, Florida Statutes, or, alternatively, the "grandfather" provision set forth in section 479.105, Florida Statutes. With respect to DOAH Case No. 14-4928, the issue is whether Respondent engaged in, or benefitted from, the unpermitted removal, cutting, or trimming of vegetation.
Findings Of Fact I. DOAH Case Nos. 14-4926 & 14-4927 The Parties The Respondent in these proceedings is I-10 Pecan House, Inc. ("Pecan House"), an entity currently owned and managed by Olan Q. Nobles. As discussed in greater detail below, Pecan House is a small country store that has conducted business in Jefferson County, Florida, for nearly 40 years. The Department is the state agency responsible, inter alia, for the regulation of outdoor advertising signs located within 600 feet of, and visible from, interstate highways. The Events In or around 1976, Erma Jean Walker (Mr. Nobles' sister) and her husband, Lyman Walker, III, purchased three tracts of land that are relevant to this proceeding. The first such parcel, upon which the Walkers quickly constructed an open- air market, comprises one acre and is located on State Road 257, immediately north of the intersection of that roadway and I-10. The second relevant parcel, .18 acres in size and located a short distance to the southeast of the first tract, is situated adjacent to the westbound lanes of I-10. Upon their acquisition of this parcel, the Walkers constructed a billboard that advertised the open-air market and the related business activities conducted on the third parcel. The third parcel, which is roughly 2.3 acres in size and likewise adjoins the westbound lanes of I-10, is located less than 1000 feet to the east of the second tract. It is upon this tract that, in mid-to-late 1976, the Walkers built a concrete structure to be used for the purpose of manufacturing candy and jelly——products the Walkers offered for sale at the nearby open-air market. By the end of 1976, the Walkers also constructed (upon the third parcel) a billboard advertising the open-air market and jelly/candy manufacture. Although the billboards referenced above were visible from I-10 and located within 600 feet of the roadway——and, thus, within the Department's "controlled area"——the Walkers did not apply for outdoor advertising permits. This is because, as the Department concedes, the billboards were exempt from licensure from 1976 until the mid-1990s (or perhaps later, as Mr. Nobles asserts) under the "on premises" exemption set forth in section 479.16, Florida Statutes. Under the definition of "premises" in effect during that period, the land upon which a sign was located did not need to be contiguous to the advertised business in order for the exemption to apply. For reasons that will soon be apparent, it is necessary to inject a third billboard into this discussion: in 1993, the Walkers constructed on the third tract of land a "double-stack" billboard, which is situated less than 200 feet and 1000 feet, respectively, from the signs erected in 1976 upon the third and second tracts. Although the double-stack billboard would have ostensibly satisfied the on-premises exemption, the Walkers nevertheless applied for——and were granted——an outdoor advertising permit. For all that appears, the Department has never initiated any proceedings to revoke the permit, which remains valid to this day. In 1995, Mrs. Walker transferred control of Pecan House to Mr. Nobles, who until that time had assisted the Walkers on an as-needed basis. Soon thereafter, Mr. Nobles upgraded the open-air market (on the first parcel) to a secure building and, of particular relevance here, ceased all manufacturing activities at the concrete building (on the third parcel). At or around that time, the Legislature amended the definition of "premises" to include a contiguity requirement.3/ This is significant, for the second and third parcels——the locations of the two billboards at issue herein——are not contiguous to the first parcel but, rather, are separated by a tract in which neither the Walkers nor Mr. Nobles holds a leasehold or ownership interest. Further, there is no recorded easement connecting Mr. Nobles' three parcels. Thus, although the two billboards constructed in 1976 lost their on-premises status in the mid-1990s, this fact apparently went unnoticed by the Department for roughly 13 years. Then, in March of 2008, the Department issued notices of violation in connection with both billboards. Among other things, the notices alleged that "outdoor advertising permit[s] [were] required, but ha[d] not been issued" for the billboards, which Mr. Nobles was instructed to remove within 30 days. A short time thereafter, an inspector or other agent of the Department conducted, in Mr. Nobles' presence, an examination of the 1976 billboards and Pecan House's business operations. At the conclusion of her inspection, the Department employee erroneously opined that, in fact, there was "no problem"4/ with the billboards in question, which Mr. Nobles reasonably took to mean that the signs continued to satisfy the on-premises exemption and, thus, were exempt from licensure. The reasonableness of this understanding was bolstered by the fact that, subsequent to the inspection, Mr. Nobles heard nothing more from the Department concerning the March 2008 notices of violation.5/ More than four years later, on December 17, 2012, the Department issued new notices of violation in connection with the 1976 billboards: notice 1352, relating to the billboard constructed upon the third parcel, which presently reads "Exit Now" and bears a Shell gasoline logo (hereinafter "Exit Now"); and notice 1487, relating to the billboard erected upon the second parcel, which presently reads "Welcome to Big O's / We Appreciate Your Business" (hereinafter "Big O's"). The parties thereafter engaged in settlement negotiations, in the course of which Mr. Nobles' counsel struggled mightily to convince the Department that the billboards continued to satisfy the on-premises exemption. When the Department rejected this argument, Mr. Nobles applied for an outdoor advertising permit for each billboard. The applications were ultimately denied, prompting the Department to refer the matters to DOAH for further proceedings. Based upon the evidence adduced at final hearing, it is evident that the billboards in question no longer meet the on-premises exemption and, thus, are subject to removal unless the signs meet either the current statutory requirements for a permit or, alternatively, the "grandfather" provision set forth in section 479.105, which authorizes licensure if the billboards satisfy earlier statutory criteria and certain other conditions. Eligibility for Licensure – "Exit Now" Beginning first with the "Exit Now" billboard, the record makes pellucid that the current statutory requirements for licensure cannot be satisfied. Among other things, the sign is located a mere 190 feet from the permitted, double-stack billboard erected in 1993, a distance far less than the minimum spacing requirement of 1500 feet. See § 479.07(9)(a)1., Fla. Stat. As for the potential applicability of the grandfather provision to the "Exit Now" billboard, it is critical to observe that the Department's delay of nearly five years (March of 2008 through December of 2012) in pursuing removal has placed Mr. Nobles at a significant disadvantage. In particular, had the Department moved forward in 2008——instead of inexplicably abandoning the action, which, along with the statements of its inspector, led Mr. Nobles to believe, incorrectly, that no permit was required——Mr. Nobles likely would have applied for a permit,6/ which the Department would have evaluated pursuant to the version of the grandfather provision in effect at that time. This is significant, for the 2008 codification of the grandfather provision, which remained unchanged until July 1, 2014, did not preclude licensure in situations where a billboard had previously enjoyed on-premises status or some other recognized exemption from the permitting requirement. Further, the pre-July 1, 2014, grandfather provision was quite favorable in that it allowed a potential licensee to demonstrate that the billboard would have met the criteria for licensure in effect "[a]t any time during the period in which the sign has been erected." § 479.105(1)(e)2., Fla. Stat. (2013)(emphasis added). The current version of the grandfather provision is quite a different animal. For one thing, grandfather status can only be granted if the billboard at issue "has never been exempt" from permitting. § 479.105(1)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added). For another thing, the current grandfather provision looks not at "any" time in which the sign has been erected but, rather, at the criteria in effect during the initial seven years in which the sign was subject to the Department's jurisdiction. § 479.105(1)(c)2.b., Fla. Stat. (2014). As Mr. Nobles readily acknowledges, his effort to obtain a permit for the "Exit Now" billboard is a nonstarter under the 2014 version of the grandfather provision, whose plain language prohibits the issuance of a permit where, as here, the sign was previously exempt from licensure. This does not end the matter, however, for the undersigned finds that the Department's unjustified delay in pursuing removal——along with its agent's erroneous statement that the billboard was legal, upon which Mr. Nobles relied——requires that the "Exit Now" application be evaluated under the version of the grandfather provision that was in effect from 2008 until July 1, 2014. Pursuant to the pre-2014 codification of section 479.105, "grandfathering" was authorized if the owner could demonstrate: 1) that the sign in question had been unpermitted, structurally unchanged, and continuously maintained at the same location for at least seven years; 2) that, at any time during the period in which the sign has been erected, the sign would have satisfied the criteria established in chapter 479 for issuance of a permit; 3) that the Department did not file a notice of violation or take other action to remove the sign during the initial seven-year period in which the sign was unpermitted, structurally unchanged, and continuously maintained at the same location; and 4) that the sign is not located on a state right-of-way and is not a safety hazard. § 479.105(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2013). Upon such a showing, the Department was authorized to treat the sign as conforming or nonconforming and issue a permit. Turing to the merits, the first prong is easily satisfied, as the "Exit Now" sign has been unpermitted, structurally unchanged, and continuously maintained at the same location for 39 years, far longer than the seven-year period the statute requires. The third prong is also met, for the record makes clear that the Department took no action to pursue removal during the initial seven-year period, i.e., 1976 through 1983, in which the sign was unpermitted, structurally unchanged, and continuously maintained. In addition, the Department stipulates that the sign neither poses a safety hazard nor is located upon a state right-of-way, thereby satisfying the fourth prong.7/ This leaves only the second prong, which asks if the sign would have met the criteria for licensure at any time after it was erected. The selection of any time period subsequent to 1993 would surely doom the application, as the sign would be unable to satisfy the minimum spacing requirement due to its close physical proximity to the double-stack billboard——which, as noted previously, was issued a permit in 1993 and remains licensed. Prior to 1993, however, there does not appear to be any spacing conflict that would preclude licensure in this instance.8/ With the spacing concern resolved (and the relevant period of inquiry narrowed to "any" time between 1976 and 1993), the undersigned turns to the only other criterion for licensure that appears to be in dispute: section 479.111(2), Florida Statutes, which authorizes the issuance of a permit only if the sign is located in "commercial-zoned and industrial-zoned areas or commercial-unzoned or industrial-unzoned areas." Unfortunately, this issue cannot be resolved on the instant record, for there is a dearth of persuasive evidence concerning the zoning designation of the third parcel (the location of the "Exit Now" sign) during the critical period of inquiry. Indeed, the record contains only the Department's speculative assumption that, because the area is presently unzoned, it therefore must have been unzoned at all times in the past.9/ Further, even accepting the Department's assumption at face value, it is impossible to determine whether the business activities conducted on the parcel from 1976 until the mid- 1990s——namely, the manufacture of candy and jelly and the sale of pecans——would satisfy the use test at any time between 1976 and 1993.10/ Under ordinary circumstances, such an absence of evidence would necessitate an adverse result for the permit applicant. Owing, however, to the unusual history and posture of this case, as well as the undersigned's conclusion that the pre-2014 grandfather provision should govern, it is recommended that the Department reevaluate Mr. Nobles' application to determine if the third parcel could have satisfied the requirements of 479.111(2) at any point between 1976 and 1993. Eligibility for Licensure – "Big O's" The undersigned turns next to the "Big O's" sign, which, like the "Exit Now" billboard, is unable to satisfy current licensing criteria due, among other reasons, to its close proximity to the double-stack billboard.11/ Further, as with the "Exit Now" billboard, the fact that the "Big O's" sign was previously exempt from licensure (owing to its on-premises status from 1976 through the mid-1990s) renders it ineligible for licensure under the 2014 codification of the grandfather provision. However, in sharp contrast to the "Exit Now" billboard, the "Big O's" sign is positioned within 500 feet of an interstate exit ramp, thereby constituting a safety hazard. This distinction is fatal to Mr. Nobles, as every codification of the grandfather provision from the mid-90s (when the sign lost its on-premises status) onward has prohibited the licensure of billboards that present a safety issue. The short of it, then, is that the sign was no more eligible for licensure in the past than it is today, which obviates the need for any further analysis under the pre-2014 version of the grandfather provision. For the reasons articulated above, Mr. Nobles has failed to prove that the "Big O's" sign is exempt from licensure by virtue of the "on-premises" exception. Further, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that, due to safety concerns, the sign would not have been eligible for licensure at any point in time. Accordingly, the undersigned is constrained to recommend the sign's removal pursuant to section 479.105. II. DOAH Case No. 14-4928 As noted earlier in this Order, DOAH Case No. 14-4928 involves an allegation that Mr. Nobles engaged in——or benefitted from——the unpermitted removal, cutting, or trimming of vegetation. The relevant facts are recounted below. On January 21, 2013, Mr. Nobles executed a lease agreement with Michael McDougal, who owns a parcel of land adjacent to the eastbound lanes of I-10, approximately .6 miles from County Road 257. In relevant part, the terms of the lease authorized Mr. Nobles to place on the property a pickup truck, attached to which was a billboard that advertised the I-10 Pecan House. Shortly thereafter, in late January 2013, Mr. Nobles relocated the truck to a position on Mr. McDougal's property a short distance to the south of the fence line that separates the parcel from the Department's right-of-way. But trouble soon followed: in late February or early March, the Department received several reports of unusual vegetation removal in the general area of Mr. Nobles' truck sign. In response, the Department requested one of its contractors, Metric Engineering, Inc. ("Metric"), to conduct a field inspection of the area. The inspection was performed on or about March 12, 2013, by Bill Armstrong, a certified arborist employed by Metric. During the course of his inspection, Mr. Armstrong observed, first, an area that the Department had previously cleared to facilitate the installation of a new fence, which had yet to be installed. This particular area, which ran along the length of the fence line and had been cleared within the preceding six months, had a width (as measured from the fence toward the roadway) of approximately 12 feet. Immediately beyond this 12-foot zone, however, Mr. Armstrong noticed evidence of other activity that had occurred much more recently. Specifically, Mr. Armstrong observed, on the side of the fence immediately opposite Mr. Nobles' truck, an area 120 feet in length (parallel to the fence line) and approximately 25 feet in width that had been cleared of vegetation. Within this 120 by 25 foot area, Mr. Armstrong discovered 30 tree stumps, which, upon close examination, exhibited signs of having been recently cut. Such indications included the presence of sawdust; the fact that the stumps were bright in color and relatively clean; and the observation of fresh debris at both ends of the swath. These findings were recorded in a report dated March 25, 2013, which Metric promptly forwarded to Morris Pigott, the Department's Project Manager of Vegetation and Resource Management. Several weeks later, Mr. Pigott conducted his own site visit, during which he examined the particular area that had concerned Mr. Armstrong. Consistent with the findings contained in Metric's report, Mr. Pigott observed, within the 120 by 25 foot area, numerous, freshly-cut tree stumps. Mr. Pigott further concluded, quite reasonably, that this activity had not been performed by the Department or one of its contractors, for the stumps had not been cut to ground level, the vegetation immediately to the east and west of the area was "very dense," and the area had not been "grubbed."12/ (As explained during the final hearing, "grubbing" involves the removal of the top six inches of surface material, an action designed to prevent regrowth.) To cinch matters, Mr. Pigott observed that the selective clearing of the 120 by 25 foot area had enhanced the visibility of Mr. Nobles' truck-mounted billboard for eastbound traffic. Thereafter, on April 14, 2013, Mr. Pigott cited Mr. Nobles for violating section 479.106(7), which provides that any person who engages in or benefits from the unauthorized removal of vegetation shall be subject to an administrative penalty. Mr. Pigott further notified Mr. Nobles that, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.057, the Department intended to assess mitigation in the amount of $8,304.25. Mr. Nobles promptly denied any and all involvement in the removal, claiming that a road crew had cleared the vegetation two years earlier. In response, Mr. Pigott contacted Mr. Armstrong, disclosed Mr. Nobles' explanation, and asked that a follow-up inspection be performed. Mr. Armstrong conducted his second inspection on August 8, 2013. At that time, Mr. Armstrong observed that Mr. Nobles' truck-mounted billboard was still present, and that the stumps within the 120 by 25 foot area had sprouted and grown to a height of two to three feet. Samples of the sprouts were collected, which Mr. Armstrong later examined for evidence of internodes——i.e., rings that denote growth, with one ring forming during each growing season. Due to the absence of internodes, Mr. Armstrong concluded that the stumps were in their first growing season, thereby eliminating any possibility that the vegetation had been cleared several years earlier.13/ Finding that the evidence proves clearly and convincingly that Mr. Nobles benefitted from the unauthorized vegetation removal, the undersigned turns finally to the question of mitigation. As noted above, the Department seeks mitigation in the amount of $8,304.25, a figure derived from Mr. Armstrong's use of the formula referenced in rule 14-10.057. It is at this juncture that the Department's case falters. Although Mr. Armstrong offered credible testimony concerning the number and species of trees (water oaks, Florida maples, and the like) that were removed from the area, the record evidence regarding their market value consists entirely of hearsay. Indeed, the Department called no witness who possessed any firsthand knowledge as to the market value of the trees; instead, it presented only the testimony of Mr. Armstrong, who explained that he had telephoned three nurseries, obtained price quotes over the phone, averaged the three figures, and plugged the averages into the formula. To be clear, the undersigned has no quarrel with either the formula or Mr. Armstrong's initial reliance upon the price quotes. The problem is that, in the absence of a stipulation from Mr. Nobles concerning the amount of mitigation, the Department was obligated to adduce at least some non-hearsay evidence of the market values——the starting point of the calculations. Inasmuch as the record is devoid of such evidence, the Department's request for mitigation must be denied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: DOAH Case No. 14-4926 RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order finding that the billboard identified in Notice of Violation 1487 ("Big O's") is illegal and subject to removal pursuant to section 479.105, Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Department enter a final order denying the related application for an outdoor advertising permit. DOAH Case No. 14-4927 RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation take no further action on Notice of Violation 1352 until such time that it reevaluates (under the pre-July 1, 2014, codification of section 479.105) the related application for an outdoor advertising permit. If the application is granted, the Department should enter a final order dismissing Notice of Violation 1352. In the event, however, the application is once again denied, the Department should afford Respondent a point of entry into the administrative process. DOAH Case No. 14-4928 RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 479.106, Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 4th day of May, 2015.
The Issue Whether DOT should void outdoor advertising permits Nos. AT402-35 and AT403-35?
Findings Of Fact On March 20, 1987, (T. 12) DOT issued advertising sign permits to respondent, Nos. AT 402-35 and AT 403-35, authorizing construction of a metal outdoor advertising sign "monopole" 43 feet high with sign boards facing north and south, less than a tenth of a mile south of Alternate U.S. Highway 90, a "federal aid primary road" (T. 11), immediately west of State Road 297 in Escambia County. DOT's Exhibit No. 1. In May of 1988, Outdoor Media, Inc., applied for a permit to construct an outdoor advertising sign at a site five or six hundred feet east of the intersection of State Road 297 and Alternate U.S. Highway 90. Because the site proposed by Outdoor Media, Inc., is visible from and lies within 660 feet of the main traveled way of Alternate U.S. Highway 90 and because it lies within 1,000 feet of the site on which DOT had authorized Salter to erect signs, DOT denied Outdoor Media, Inc.'s, application. When Philip N. Brown, who works in DOT's outdoor advertising section, reported that no sign had ever been built at the site for which Salter had obtained permits Nos. AT402-35 and AT403-35, DOT notified Salter of its intent to void and revoke the permits. DOT's Exhibit No. 2. Some time after June 19, 1988, more than 18 days after DOT sent Salter notice of its intent to void the sign permits, Salter erected a wooden sign on the site. On March 10, 1988, Salter had obtained a building permit from Escambia County for the metal monopole structure, but, because more than 180 days had elapsed without any call for inspection, Escambia County declared the building permit null and void on September 23, 1988.
The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation should is sue a permit under Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, for the subject outdoor advertising sign.
Findings Of Fact An outdoor advertising sign located 9.85 miles east of Volusia County line on Highway 1-4, East, with copy presently reading, "Four Seasons" was cited for violation by the Petitioner, Department of Transportation. Said violation notice was sent to the Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising Company. The sign is located approximately 1200 feet north of State Road 430-A on the east side of 1-4 facing south and bears a 1974 state permit No. 6273-10. It is not disputed that this sign was owned by Rivers Advertising Company and sold by Rivers Advertising Company by Bill of Sale dated June 21, 1974 to the Petitioner, Department of Transportation. The sign did not conform to the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, as evidenced by memorandum dated May 1, 1973, Department of Transportation files, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, and upon its sale to the Department was to have been removed by the Department from its location. The payment for the sign amounted to $4,975 which was paid by check to the owner, Rivers Advertising Company. Rivers Advertising Company had leased the real property on which subject sign stood from the property owner, Mr. Gene Berna. Mr. Berna said that Rivers Advertising Company had not paid under their lease agreement at the time that the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, sought to remove the sign subsequent to its purchase from Rivers on June 21, 1974 and would not let the maintenance crew remove the structure. Dandy Signs claimed ownership of the sign by virtue of the fact that Gene Berna sold it to then and that it purchased a renewal 1974 permit tag Number 6273-10-74 and affixed it to the structure. Dandy Signs had never made an application for a permit for subject sign but through error of the Petitioner acquired the permit sign attached to subject sign through the inclusion of it in a regular renewal procedure. Subject sign was not eligible to be permitted under the renewal procedure inasmuch as said sign had been purchased by the State of Florida on June 21, 1974 and Dandy Signs was not eligible for the renewal permit issued because it did not own the sign. Dandy Signs, claiming ownership for the sign through an agreement with the owner of the property on which the sign was located, then "sold" the subject sign by Bill of Sale to the Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising, by an instrument dated May 27, 1975. The proposed Recommended Order filed by the Respondent has been examined and considered in the preparation of this order. The Hearing Officer further finds: The subject sign is owned by the Petitioner. The property owner, Gene Berna, had no title to the subject sign. His only interest was as lessor of the real property. Dandy Signs was on notice that the sign did not belong to the property owner, Gene Berna, and that it belonged to Rivers Outdoor Advertising. Berna told Dandy Signs the subject sign belonged to Rivers. Dandy Signs should not have requested a renewal permit on a sign not previously owned by it and not purchased from the owner. The Petitioner erroneously issued a renewal permit on subject sign upon Dandy's representation it was the owner of the sign. Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising, received no interest in the sign by the alleged Bill of Sale of May, 1975, inasmuch as it did not buy the sign from the owner, the State.
Recommendation Deny the request for a permit. Remove the subject sign which is owned by the Petitioner and should be removed from the roadside. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William Rowland, Esquire 115 East Morse Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32789
The Issue Whether the Outdoor Advertising Sign owned by the Petitioner qualifies for permitting as a non-conforming sign.
Findings Of Fact On August 5, 1996, the Department issued a notice of Violation of an illegally erected sign to Clarence E. Adams. The sign in question was located 9.240 miles south of the line between Georgia and Florida on real property that is now and always has been zoned agricultural. The property upon which the sign is located was purchased by Clarence Adams and his brother, Dennis C. Adams, in 1976. The sign was on the property when they purchased the property; and, although they did not own the sign, they have derived continually revenue from the rental of the property upon which the sign is located since 1976. The sign has been maintained in it present form since 1976 by its owner(s). The subject sign had never been cited previously by the Department for violation of the outdoor advertising statutes. The subject sign is located at mile post 9.240. The sign is not in the Department’s right of way. The sign is not a danger to the traveling public. The sign is located adjacent to and can be seen from the main traveled way of Interstate 75 which is a federal highway that is open to the public. The current owner, Ray Sheffield, testified and did not claim to have a valid permit. Clarence Adams admitted that he had never applied for such a permit. The Department proved by testimony and evidence that the subject sign does not have a valid outdoor advertising permit, and there is no record by the Department that it ever had a valid permit. Clarence Adams proved that the sign was at its current location in 1976 when Adams and his brother purchased the property. Adams proved that a sign was in that location as early as 1975. The Department and the Federal Highway Administration entered into an agreement in 1972 that prohibited the erection of outdoor advertising signs along federal highways in areas zoned agricultural. The Petitioner did not prove that the sign was erected prior to the agreement between the Department and the Federal Highway Administration in 1972.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order finding: That the outdoor advertising sign, which is the subject of the notice of violation and which is located at mile post 9.240, does not have a permit, is in violation of the law, and is not qualified to be grand-fathered in and permitted; and That the owners of the real property upon which the subject sign is located and putative owner of the sign, Ray Sheffield, be directed to remove the sign within 30 days; and That the owners of the real property be advised that, if the subject sign is not removed, the Department will seek an order of a court of competent jurisdiction directing the removal of the sign and assessing costs for obtaining the court’s order and the costs of removing the sign. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 22nd day of May, 1997 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Scaff, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer O Jasper, Florida 32052 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether the subject outdoor advertising signs are illegal because they were erected without state permits from Petitioner. Whether the subject signs should be removed. Whether Petitioner is equitably estopped to assert that the signs are illegal and should be removed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to Interstate 95 on Northwest 6th Court, which is between Northwest 75th Street and Northwest 76th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. For ease of reference, this sign will be referred to as the Interstate 95 sign. The Interstate 95 sign has two facings, each of which is visible from Interstate 95. The Interstate 95 sign is located within 147 feet of the right-of-way of Interstate 95. Respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to Interstate 395 at the corner of Northwest 14th Street and Northwest 1st Court, Miami, Dade County, Florida. For ease of reference, this sign will be referred to as the Interstate 395 sign. The Interstate 395 sign has two facings, each of which is visible from Interstate 395. The Interstate 395 sign is located within 240 feet of the right- of-way of Interstate 395. Eugene A. (Andy) Hancock, Jr., is the President of the corporate Respondent and, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, controlled the activities of Respondent. Mr. Hancock caused the corporate Respondent to lease the respective properties on which the subject signs are located in November 1998. He thereafter caused the corporate Respondent to erect the two double-faced signs at issue in this proceeding. The subject signs were constructed during September and October 1999. Each sign was constructed without a state permit from Petitioner. Each sign is within the permitting jurisdiction of Petitioner. Mr. Hancock testified that his company did not apply for permits from Petitioner because of a conversation he had with Bernard Davis, a former outdoor advertising administrator for Petitioner. Mr. Hancock testified that Mr. Davis represented to him that his company would not need permits from Petitioner if it had permits from the City of Miami. This testimony is rejected. 3/ Respondent has applied for state sign permits for the subject signs. Permits for these signs have not been issued because of their proximity to existing, permitted signs. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that the subject signs are illegal and must be removed pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Hearings this 6th day of February, 2001.
