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 the Respondent is in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, for having no identification on the sign, no valid lease for the sign and no current permit tag.
Findings Of Fact A violation notice was issued to the Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising Company, on June 18, 1976, citing a sign located at .23 miles south of John's Road on U.S. 1, with copy "TOBYS". The violation not ice stated that the Respendent was to violation of Section 479.07(4), Florida Statutes, with no current tag, with the lust tag being 1971; Section 479.07(7), Florida Statutes, with no identifier; Section 479.13, Florida Statutes, with no valid lease. The latest permit tag affixed to the sign is dated 1971. A photograph of the sign taken on the 20th of April, 1977, showed that there was no identifier on the sign. An identifier is the imprint showing the owner of the sign. Subsequent to the taking of the photograph, an identifier was added to the sign showing the Respondent as owner. The Respondent entered into evidence an application for outdoor advertising permit dated March 2, 1977. A sign lease agreement was entered into evidence by the Respondent dated the 15th day of February, 1977, alleged to be a lease agreement from the Florida Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists for a lease for a term of five years beginning January 1, 1973 and expiring December 31, 1977, for the subject billboard sign. There was confusion as to the ownership of the sign and the sign stood without permit tags subsequent to 1971. No application for permitting of the sign was made until the Respondent made an application for a permit as indicated in the foregoing findings of fact in 1977. The proposed Recommended Order of the Respondent has been considered in the preparation of this order.
Recommendation Remove the subject sign inasmuch as the sign is illegal and in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William D. Rowland, Esquire 115 East Morse Boulevard Post Office Box 539 Winter Park, Florida 32789
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.
The Issue Whether the structure described in the Department of Transportation's Notice of Violation No. 10B DB 2000 007 (Notice) is in violation of Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and therefore subject to removal pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is an outdoor advertising company that was formerly known as AK Media. On December 10, 1998, Petitioner (while still known as AK Media) entered into an agreement with NWT Partners, Ltd., the owner of the New World Tower (Building), a "thirty story four (4) sided building" located at 100 North Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, Florida, to lease certain portions of the Building. The lease agreement contained the following provisions, among others: Effective Date. This Lease shall become effective on the later of (x) the date that Tenant provides written notice to Landlord that Tenant has obtained all permits, license and governmental approvals necessary or required to enable Tenant to construct, maintain and operate the Wall Faces and Wall Structures, as hereinafter defined or (y) January 1, 1999 (the "Effective Date"). Tenant shall have ninety (90) days from the date of this Lease to obtain all such permits, licenses and approvals or the Landlord may cancel this Lease. Purpose. The purpose of this lease is for Tenant to construct, maintain and operate painted, printed, illuminated and/or electrical signs on the north and south wall faces of the Building (the "Wall Faces"), and all other uses not inconsistent therewith, including all necessary supporting structures, devices, illumination facilities and connections, service ladders and equipment, and other appurtenances (the "Wall Fixtures"). All construction to the Building, and advertising thereon, including construction drawing and artwork to be furnished by the Tenant shall be subject to Landlord's written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Tenant's Right to Enter and Use. For the duration of this Lease, Tenant shall have the non-exclusive right to enter onto the Property and into the Building and use the Wall Faces for the purposes described in this Lease and any other purposes allowed or required by this Lease and Tenant has the exclusive right to use the Wall Faces Property for advertising. In exercising Tenant's rights hereunder, Tenant may hang or attach the Wall Fixtures to the roof and exterior structure of the Building. Tenant shall maintain the Wall Fixtures at Tenant's cost and expense. Tenant shall pay all utility charges in connection with the operation and maintenance of the Wall Fixtures. Tenant shall be responsible for damage to the Building which is caused by Tenant's operation and maintenance and removal of the Wall Fixtures and shall repair any such damage and restore the Building to the condition it was in immediately prior to such damages at the expiration or termination of this Lease. Term. The term of this Lease is for five (5) years from the "Rent Commencement Date," as hereinafter defined, to the last day of the month during which the fifth anniversary of the Rent Commencement Date occurs (the "Term"). Rent. Tenant shall pay Landlord rent annually, in accordance with the schedule (the "Rent Schedule") set forth on Exhibit "B" hereto, inclusive of all taxes . . . . Contracts. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, Tenant will use its best efforts to obtain contracts (the "Contracts") for advertising on the Building which exceed the amount of the Guaranteed Rent, as set forth on the Rent Schedule. . . . 9. Ownership/Removal. At all times, Tenant is and shall remain the owner of the Wall Fixtures and all signs and permits of any kind in relation thereto, and has the right to remove the Wall Fixtures at any time. . . . Exhibit "B" Rent Schedule Tenant shall pay annual rent to Landlord in an amount equal to the greater of (x) Fifty-five percent (55%) of the gross revenues attributable to advertisements displayed on the North Wall and the South Wall of the Building less any agency fee or commissions not greater than 16 2/3% to bona fide third parties (the "Net Revenues") associated with such advertisements (the "Percentage Rent") or (y) the minimum guaranteed annual rent (the "Guaranteed Rent") hereinafter set forth as follows: . . . The Landlord may terminate the Lease Agreement upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to Tenant if either Wall is vacant for more than one hundred twenty (120) consecutive days during the Term of the Lease and the Tenant has failed to obtain a contract, before the expiration of such notice period, for advertising on the North Wall or South Wall, as the case may be, pursuant to which the projected Percentage Rent under such contract would exceed the Guaranteed Rent. . . . Subsequently, Petitioner (while still operating under the name AK Media) entered into a "bulletin contract" with New York Outdoor, an advertising agency acting on behalf of Supreme International, in which Petitioner agreed, for a fee, to produce and maintain an "outdoor advertising display" for Supreme International on the north wall of the Building. Supreme International sells "Perry Ellis" and "Perry Ellis for Men" brand fashion apparel. In accordance with the "bulletin contract," Petitioner produced an "outdoor advertising display" for Supreme International on the north wall of the Building. The "outdoor advertising display" that Petitioner produced was a large mural more than 100 feet high and more than 60 feet wide. Such a product is referred to in the outdoor advertising industry as a "wallscape." The "wallscape" that Petitioner produced for Supreme International consisted of artwork (a picture of a young woman) and print (the words "Perry Ellis for Men") on a "canvass-type" material that was mounted on a "picture frame" support structure attached to the north wall of the Building. It was located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of a roadway, US Highway 1 (also known, in that location, as North Biscayne Boulevard), which is a part of the federal-aid primary highway system. The artwork and print could be seen without visual aid by motorists of normal visual acuity travelling on US Highway 1 in the vicinity of the Building. At no time has Petitioner applied for, or obtained, a permit from the Department authorizing it to erect and maintain a "sign," as that term is used in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, on the north wall of the Building. Petitioner, however, did seek and obtain a Class II Special Permit from the City of Miami. The permit was granted by the Miami City Commission, through the passage of Miami City Commission Resolution 99- 828, at its October 26, 1999, meeting. The printed agenda distributed in advance of the meeting stated the following concerning the permit for which Petitioner had applied: Consideration of approving Class II Special Permit No. 99-0142 for the property located at approximately 100 North Biscayne Boulevard for a sign of a graphic or artistic value. This will allow a mural containing a commercial message. The resolution passed by the Miami City Commission at the meeting read as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR ISSUANCE OF CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 99-0142, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THERE SHALL BE NO WRITING PERMITTED WITH THE MURAL AND OTHER CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 100 NORTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO SECTION 401 OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED. WHEREAS, the Director for the Department of Planning is recommending approval of Class II Special Permit Application No. 99-0142, with conditions, for the property located at approximately 100 North Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida; and WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, requires City Commission approval of the Class II Special Permit as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of this matter, finds the application for a Class II Special Permit does meet the applicable requirements of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, and deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to approve the recommendation of the Director of the Department of Planning to uphold the issuance of the Class II Special Permit, subject to the condition that there shall be no writing permitted with the mural and other conditions as recommended by the Planning Department; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this section. Section 2. The recommendation of the Director of the Department of Planning to issue Class II Special Permit Application No. 99-0142, subject to the condition that there shall be no writing permitted with the mural and other conditions as recommended by the Planning Department, for the property located at approximately 100 North Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida, is hereby approved, and the City Commission finds that the issuance of Class II Special Permit Application No. 99-0142, with conditions does meet the applicable requirements of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, as amended. Section 3. The Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor. Inasmuch as the words "Perry Ellis for Men" were on the "wallscape" that Petitioner produced for Supreme International, this "wallscape" was not in compliance with the condition imposed by the Miami City Commission, in issuing the Class II Special Permit to Petitioner, that there "be no writing permitted with the mural." On February 22, 2000, Bernard Davis, who, at the time, was the Department's District 6 Roadside Outdoor Advertising Administrator, issued a Notice of Violation (Notice No. 10B DB 2000 007) alleging that the "wallscape" on the north wall of the Building (described above) was "in violation of Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, which requires a permit for all outdoor advertising signs not exempted by Section 479.16, Florida Statutes" and directing that the sign be removed within 30 days. Petitioner thereafter requested an administrative hearing on the matter. Prior to the hearing, the artwork and print on the "wallscape" on the north wall of the Building were changed. As of the date of the final hearing in this case, the "wallscape" on the north wall of the Building contained a picture of a man and part of a woman and the words "Perry Ellis," underneath which was written "www.perryellis.com," Supreme International's website address. The Monday and Tuesday before the final hearing (February 5 and 6, 2001), Mr. Davis' successor, C. Jean Cann, went inside the Building to determine whether Supreme International had an "on-premises presence." On Monday, February 5, 2001, Ms. Cann entered the Building at approximately 1:15 p.m. After obtaining information from the Building's Electronic Directory that "Perry Ellis" occupied room 2128, she took the elevator to the 21st floor. After getting off the elevator, she walked down a hallway, where she saw a paper sign on a door which read "Perry Ellis/Supreme International, Incorporated, 2128." When she knocked on the door, no one answered. She waited 10 to 15 seconds and then knocked again, with the same result. She then, unsuccessfully, attempted to open the door. At around 1:45 p.m., she left the Building. Ms. Cann returned to the Building the following day at approximately 11:40 a.m., at which time she spoke to a security guard, who informed her that "Perry Ellis" "was in 2126." She then again went up to the 21st floor, and, on the same door that she had seen the "Perry Ellis/Supreme International, Incorporated, 2128" sign the day before, she saw a paper sign that read "Perry Ellis/Supreme International, Incorporated, 2126." Her knocks on the door, like those of the previous day, went unanswered, and she was again unable to open the door. At around 12:00 noon, she exited the Building. At no time during either of her two visits was Ms. Cann able to ascertain what, if any, business activity Supreme International was engaging in inside the Building.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that the "wallscape" on the north side of the Building is a "sign" that was erected and is being maintained without the Department-issued permit required by Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and that it therefore is a public and private nuisance that must be removed pursuant to Section 479.105(1), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 2001.
The Issue What final agency action should the Department of Transportation take on Petitioner's Application for Outdoor Advertising Permit.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The proposed sign that is the subject of the instant controversy (Proposed Sign) is located off of I-95 in the City of Miami (City) at 328-334 Flagler Street on a parcel of land leased by Petitioner from CanPartners Realty (CanPartners Parcel). Section 10.4.5 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.4.5), which has been in effect since 2002, prohibits "new signs of outdoor advertising," except in limited circumstances. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: For the purposes of this section, "Outdoor advertising signs" are signs used in the conduct of the outdoor advertising business; an outdoor advertising business, for the purpose of this section, is defined as the business of receiving or paying money for displaying signs where the sign copy does not pertain to the use of the property, a product sold, or the sale or lease of the property on which the sign is displayed and which does not identify the place of business as purveyor of the merchandise or services advertised on the sign. Except as otherwise provided in Articles 4 and 10 and/or the City Code, or, pursuant to this subsection, no new freestanding "Outdoor advertising signs," as defined above shall be allowed. * * * Notwithstanding any provision of this Zoning Ordinance to the contrary, permits for outdoor advertising signs may be issued pursuant to a Settlement Agreement authorized by Resolution passed by the City Commission, in conjunction with the settlement of related litigation, which expressly authorizes issuance of such permits for said outdoor advertising signs, and then only under the terms and conditions of settlement agreements that result in a net reduction in the party to the settlement's number of outdoor advertising signs located in the City of Miami. . . . The City has entered into "Settlement Agreements" of the type described in the last paragraph of Section 10.4.5 with three sign owners: Carter Pritchett Hodges, Inc., d/b/a Carter Outdoor Advertising, Inc.; Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. d/b/a/ Clear Channel Outdoor; and Intervenor. The City does not have a such a "Settlement Agreement" with Petitioner. The City entered into its Settlement Agreement with Intervenor (City/CBS Settlement Agreement) on July 18, 2008. The City/CBS Settlement Agreement contains the following provisions, among others: 4. Amended Permits. In recognition of CBS's [Intervenor's] removal of the numerous Sign structures and Sign faces described in this Agreement and waiver of just compensation thereof, the City will amend a maximum of 15 existing sign permits (the "Amended Permits") to allow CBS to transfer the permit rights associated with such Signs to new locations with a maximum of two (2) Sign faces each on the terms and conditions set forth below: The City will amend up to a maximum of 15 permits for Signs based on CBS's removal of Signs on a two for one basis: for every two bulletin faces removed, one bulletin face may be erected with an Amended Permit. . . . * * * c. Upon application by CBS showing compliance with the provisions of this paragraph, the City will amend existing Sign permits to allow the transfer of permit rights associated with such Sign or Signs to locations within the same or a less restrictive Zoning District. For all Initial Amended Permits and Amended Permits, CBS will submit FDOT Form 575-010-04 to the City, which will be stamped on the date received. The City's signature on the FDOT Form 575-010-04 shall constitute approval of the location of the sign, and no further approvals from the City shall be required. All Sign permits will be processed "first in, first out," such that no other FDOT Forms may be signed or authorized for a subsequent application which would interfere with the location secured by a previously approved FDOT Form 575-010-04. If an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature, the City's approval will become null and void for that particular application. * * * 19. Miscellaneous. * * * f. Assignments/Binding Nature. This Agreement will be binding upon and will inure to the benefit of the any successor or permitted assigns of the parties hereto. CBS shall have the right of assignment of rights and obligations under this Agreement. However, no attempted assignment by CBS will be valid unless: (1) the assignee shall execute an Agreement to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to accept all of the rights and obligations of CBS under this Agreement; and (2) the assignment is approved in writing by the City Commission, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. The parties acknowledge that the City Commission shall have the right to reject proposed assignment if the assignee does not fully adopt the terms of this Agreement. Any such assignment shall not relieve CBS of its obligations under this Agreement . . . . Any attempted assignment in violation of this Section shall be void. In anticipation of the finalization of the City/CBS Settlement Agreement, Intervenor (through Joseph Little) and Petitioner (through Harkley Thorton) had signed, on May 1, 2008, a Letter of Understanding (LOU) "set[ting] forth the understanding between [Intervenor] and [Petitioner] concerning new sign locations to be utilized in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement between [Intervenor] and the City of Miami." The first numbered paragraph of the LOU explained: CBS is negotiating and attempting to finalize a Settlement Agreement with the City whereby the City will issue 15 amended permits for the construction of new monopole signs with double faces, on expressways located within the City, in return for which CBS will remove 2 existing (or previously removed) sign faces for each new sign face constructed pursuant to an Amended Permit, subject to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement between CBS and the City. Paragraph 2 of the LOU read, in pertinent part, as follows: With respect to the Settlement Agreement with the City, CBS and OM [Petitioner] agree as follows: * * * Under the Settlement Agreement, CBS seeks to obtain 7 Initial Amended Permits (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) one of which is tentatively agreed to be located in Jose Marti Park. Provided there is no term in the Settlement Agreement and the City does not otherwise require CBS to develop a site in the Jose Marti Park, CBS will abandon its proposed Jose Marti Park site and instead accept a site owned by Brickell Land Development Company, located at approximately 300 SW 8th Street (the "Brickell Site"), which is or will be subject to a lease with OM that allows construction and operation of a sign in accordance with the terms of paragraph (2c) below. . . . Provided OM obtains four (4) additional sites for placement of signs pursuant to Amended Permits under the Settlement Agreement, CBS agrees to accept said four sites provided CBS deems each site to be commercially viable. . . . For each of the sites accepted by CBS, CBS will enter into a sub-lease agreement with OM, whereby OM will be the sub-lessor and CBS will be the sub-lessee. . . . Provided that OM produces the Brickell Partners Site and four (4) additionally Commercially Viable Locations, CBS will assign the rights to one (1) of its amended permits under the Settlement Agreement with the City. CBS will assign to OM, and OM will assume, CBS's rights and obligations under the Settlement Agreement to said amended permit except for CBS'[s] obligations pursuant to paragraphs (7a-7d), (8a), and (12a). CBS will provide for the removal of two (2) of its existing sign structures to allow the City to issue the said Amended Permit to OM under the Settlement Agreement. * * * h. CBS'[s] acceptance of the four (4) Commercially Viable Locations referenced in 2c above is expressly conditioned upon the City's approving all locations on Exhibits B and B-1, as amended from time to time, as appropriate removals for Amended Permits in the Settlement Agreement. The penultimate paragraph of the LOU (Paragraph 6) provided as follows: This letter is a Letter of Understanding and binding between the parties and establishes the major business points and conditions of the Parties' agreement for this transaction. However, it is not all inclusive in that it does not contain all the deal points. The Parties agree to expand upon this Letter of Understanding in good faith to prepare a full agreement that can be executed within thirty (30) days of the date of this Letter of Understanding. Such agreement shall be consistent with the terms of this Letter of Understanding and contain such further terms and conditions as are mutually acceptable to the Parties. However, the failure of the Parties to complete a full agreement shall not invalidate the terms of this Letter of Understanding or excuse either Party from performing its obligations and responsibilities as set forth herein. The record is devoid of evidence that Intervenor and Petitioner ever executed a "full agreement," as contemplated by paragraph 6 of the LOU. Intervenor has not executed (pursuant to Paragraph 2e. of the LOU), nor has the City Commission approved (pursuant to Paragraph 19f. of the City/CBS Settlement Agreement), any assignment to Petitioner of Intervenor's rights under the City/CBS Settlement Agreement (although Petitioner believes that it is entitled to such an assignment and has so argued in circuit court litigation in which it is currently involved with Intervenor). On May 2, 2008, Intervenor (through Mr. Little) sent a letter to the City, which read as follows: CBS Outdoor, Inc. [Intervenor] and Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC [Petitioner] have signed a letter of understanding dated May 1, 2008 (The "Agreement"). Please accept this letter as confirmation that in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, CBS Outdoors, Inc. consents to Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC filing Applications for Outdoor Advertising Permits with the Florida Department of Transportation on our behalf. Thereafter, Petitioner submitted to the City's Zoning Administrator, Lourdes Slazyk, (on the version of FDOT Form 575- 010-04 then in effect) Petitioner's Application, requesting that Ms. Slazyk complete and sign the "Local Government Permission" section of the form. Obtaining such "Local Government Permission" is among the prerequisites for receiving an outdoor advertising sign permit from the Department. To erect an outdoor advertising sign in the City after the Department issues a permit, a City building permit (which is "something other than" the "Local Government Permission" referred to above) is required. Ms. Slazyk completed and signed the "Local Government Permission" section of the form, as requested, on May 22, 2008. It was not until almost a year later that Petitioner's Application was submitted to the Department. In completing the form, Ms. Slazyk checked the box indicating that the "outdoor advertising sign identified in this application: [was] in compliance with all duly adopted local ordinances and has been or will be issued the necessary permits." She did so based upon her understanding that the application (which named Petitioner as the applicant) was actually being filed by Petitioner on behalf and with the consent of Intervenor (in accordance with Mr. Little's May 2, 2008, letter) and that Petitioner was "traveling under" the City/CBS Settlement Agreement. Had Intervenor not notified the City that Petitioner was, with Intervenor's consent, "filing Applications for Outdoor Advertising Permits with the Florida Department of Transportation on [Intervenor's] behalf," Ms. Slazyk would not have checked the "compliance" box on the form, given the requirement of Section 10.4.5 of the City's Zoning Ordinance that "permits for outdoor advertising signs" may be issued only "pursuant to a Settlement Agreement" of the type described in Section 10.4.5 (to which Petitioner, unlike Intervenor, was not a party). On August 28, 2008, Intervenor (through Mr. Little) sent a letter to the City, which read as follows: CBS Outdoor, Inc. herewith withdraws its blanket letter of consent dated May 2, 2008 authorizing the City to approve FDOT application forms by Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC on our behalf. A copy of that letter is attached. Henceforth, any FDOT outdoor advertising application form submitted to the City by Outlook must include a specific authorization from CBS Outdoor indicating our approval and authorizing the City to process the FDOT form pursuant to our Settlement Agreement with the City. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. By letter dated October 24, 2008, Intervenor (through its attorney, Glenn Smith, Esquire), advised the City, among other things, that it was "withdraw[ing]" certain applications for outdoor advertising sign permits from the Department, including Petitioner's Application, that either it or Petitioner, on Intervenor's behalf, had previously submitted to the City to obtain the "Local Government Permission" required for such a Department permit. On February 13, 2009, Petitioner (through its attorney, Amanda Quirke, Esquire) sent a letter to Ms. Slazyk, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: As you are aware, under Section 4(c) of the CBS Settlement agreement with the City of Miami, the City's approval of a location becomes null and void if an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature on FDOT Form 575-070-04. In addition, FDOT requires local government approval within 6 months of the application to FDOT. Therefore, Outlook Media is requesting the renewal of the approval of the City of Miami for the following locations: * * * CanPartners Realty * * * Applications are attached for each one of the aforementioned locations. Please stamp the attached applications received today, and advise when we can pick up the stamped received copies for our files. Thank you for your assistance. Intervenor had not authorized Petitioner to make such a request on Intervenor's behalf. Accordingly, (through Mr. Smith) it sent Ms. Quirke the following letter, dated February 18, 2009: As you are aware, this firm represents CBS Outdoor, Inc. ("CBS"). This letter is submitted in response to your February 13, 2009, letter to Lourdes Slazyk at the City of Miami ("City") seeking the approval of the City of the Renewal Applications. CBS has issued no authorization to OM [Petitioner] to submit the Renewal Applications to the City. Therefore, the February 13, 2009 Letter is ultra vires, and OM is directed to withdraw same. If OM desires to obtain CBS's authorization to process the Renewal Applications to the City, OM is directed to submit to CBS a written request for authorization to do so. OM's written request for authorization should address, among other things, the following: CBS's original authorization to OM to submit the FDOT Application to the City was to authorize OM to make submissions on behalf of CBS. Please confirm that any submission of Renewal Application by OM to the City will likewise be on behalf of CBS. Many questions remain relative as the various locations identified in the February 13, 2009, Letter as to whether the locations are "commercially viable." See Attachment A hereto. Please contact the undersigned to schedule a meeting to discuss resolution of these remaining questions. Can Partners Realty: As you know, the City has agreed to approve the Lummis Site. Therefore, the CanPartners Realty site is no longer under consideration and is not to be renewed. OM is hereby specifically directed to take no action to renew the FDOT Application for this site. CBS and its representative are available to discuss the February 13, 2009 Letter, the Renewal Applications and the contents of this letter. If OM desires to discuss same, please contact the undersigned for that purpose. That same day (February 18, 2009), Intervenor (through Mr. Smith) also sent a letter to Ms. Slazyk, in which it stated the following: As you are aware, this firm represents CBS Outdoor, Inc. ("CBS"). This letter is being sent to you on behalf of CBS in response to the February 13, 2009 Letter to you from counsel for OM. In the February 13, 2009 Letter, counsel for OM requests approval by the City of Miami (the "City") of the Renewal Applications under the CBS Settlement Agreement with the City. Please be advised that CBS has not authorized OM to present the Renewal Applications to the City. Therefore, CBS requests that the City take no action on the Renewal Application until the City receives further communications regarding same from CBS. Notwithstanding Intervenor's directive (communicated in its February 18, 2009, letter to Ms. Quirke) that "the CanPartners Realty site . . . not . . . be renewed," on that same date (February 18, 2009), Petitioner (through Ms. Quirke) sent a follow-up letter to Ms. Slazyk, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: In accordance with the request of CBS, please accept this revised request for the renewal of the outdoor advertising applications, originally submitted on February 13, 2009. This revised request is a clarification that Outlook is requesting the renewal of the approval of the following applications on behalf of CBS. As you are aware, under Section 4(c) of the CBS Settlement agreement with the City of Miami, the City's approval of a location becomes null and void if an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature on FDOT Form 575-070-04. In addition, FDOT requires local government approval within 6 months of the application to FDOT. Therefore, Outlook Media of South Florida, on behalf of CBS, is requesting the renewal of the approval of the City of Miami for the following locations: * * * CanPartners Realty * * * Applications are attached for each one of the aforementioned locations. Please stamp the attached applications received today, and advise when we can pick up the stamped, received copies for our files. Thank you for your assistance. The following day, February 19, 2009, Ms. Slazyk wrote back to Ms. Quirke, stating the following: I am in receipt of a faxed letter with back up from your office dated February 13, 2009 and faxed again, as modified, dated February 18, 2009 requesting renewal of certain outdoor advertising signs. I am informing you that, per the attached letters from CBS, and their representatives, the request is not authorized. Petitioner appealed Ms. Slazyk's denial of its renewal request to the City Zoning Board, which upheld the denial. Petitioner thereafter took a further appeal to the City Commission, but Petitioner subsequently withdrew this appeal. It is the City's position "today" (as expressed by Ms. Slazyk at hearing) that Petitioner does not have "Local Government Permission" from the City for the Proposed Sign. On May 4, 2009, almost a year after Ms. Slazyk had signed the "Local Government Permission" section of Petitioner's Application, Petitioner's Application was submitted to the Department.5 The Department contracts with Cardno TBE "to do physical inspections of potential advertising sites" that are the subject of permit applications. For the past 11 years, Matt Barnes has been employed by Cardno TBE as an outdoor advertising inspector responsible for conducting such inspections for the Department. Mr. Barnes was assigned the task of inspecting the CanPartners Parcel (the site where, according to Petitioner's Application, the Proposed Sign would be located). Using two different distance measuring devices,6 Mr. Barnes measured the distance "along the highway [I-95]" from a point directly above the Proposed Sign location (as indicated by a "wooden stake [sticking] about two feet out of the ground" that had been placed there by Petitioner) to the "nearest permitted sign" on the same side of the "highway" (which was to the south and bore tag numbers 412 and 413).7 He "came up with 970 feet both times." On May 19, 2009, the Department issued its Notice of Denied Outdoor Advertising Permit Application, announcing its intention to deny Petitioner's Application because, in pertinent part, the "[Proposed] [S]ign [did] not meet spacing requirements" and the "Local Government Permission" was given "more than six (6) months prior to [the Department's] receipt [of the application]." Petitioner subsequently requested a "formal administrative hearing" on the matter. On May 21, 2009, Intervenor filed an Application for Outdoor Advertising Permit for a sign to be located at 350 Northwest Second Street in the City on a parcel leased to Intervenor by Lummus Park Associates, LLC (Lummus Sign). Because of its proximity to the location of the Proposed Sign, the Lummus Sign would violate minimum spacing requirements and thus not be permittable were Petitioner's Application to be granted. Accordingly, Intervenor's application is being held in "pending status" by the Department until final action is taken on Petitioner's Application.8 On June 17, 2009, Petitioner (through one of its principals, Santiago Echemendia, Esquire) sent a letter to the City, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: This law firm represents Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC ("Outlook"). As you may be aware, Section 14 of SB 360 provides that any local government issued development order or building permit that has an expiration date of September 1, 2008 through January 1, 2012, is extended and renewed for a period of two years following its date of expiration. In accordance with Section 4(c) of the Settlement Agreement between CBS Outdoor, Inc. and the City of Miami (attached), "[i]f an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature, the City's approval will become null and void for that particular application." FDOT also takes the position that the local government permission on FDOT Form 575-070-04 must be issued within 180 days of application to FDOT for an FDOT tag for a sign location. On behalf of Outlook, pursuant to Section 14 of Senate Bill 360, please accept this letter as notification that Outlook is extending the local government permission provided on FDOT Form 575-070-04 for the following locations: * * * Site: CanPartners Folio Number: 01-4137-036-0020 Local Government Permission: 05/22/08 FDOT 180 Day Expiration: 11/18/08 2 Year Extension of FDOT 180 Day Expiration: 11/18/10 Original 280 Day Expiration: 02/26/09 2 Year Extension of City of Miami Expiration: 02/26/11 * * * This 2 year extension notification applies to extend both the FDOT 180 Day Expiration, as well as the 280 Day Expiration set forth in the CBS Settlement Agreement. Therefore, the expiration date for the aforementioned sign locations is extended until the dates listed in the columns entitled "2 Year Extension of FDOT 180 Day Expiration" and "2 Year Extension of City of Miami Expiration." A copy of the FDOT Form 575-070-04 for each of the sign locations is attached for your convenience. . . . On October 5, 2009 (approximately five months after the filing of Petitioner's Application with the Department), the City Commission, on second reading, adopted a resolution (Resolution File Number 09-01061) to enable it to participate in the "pilot program" established by Section 479.07(9)(c), Florida Statutes, "under which the distance between permitted signs on the same side of an interstate highway may be reduced to 1,000 feet if [certain] requirements . . . are met." The resolution, which is still in effect, provides as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION EXPRESSING ITS INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN A PILOT PROGRAM ALLOWING 1,000 FOOT SPACING OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS ALONG EXPRESSWAYS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NOTIFY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE CITY'S INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH PILOT PROGRAM. WHEREAS, Section 10.4.5 of the Miami Zoning Ordinance prohibits new freestanding "Outdoor advertising signs" as defined therein, except for Outdoor advertising signs permitted pursuant to a Settlement Agreement that results in a net reduction in the number of Outdoor advertising signs located in the City of Miami (hereinafter "qualified settlement agreement"); and WHEREAS, by separate Resolutions, the City Commission has authorized the City Manager on behalf of the City of Miami ("City") to enter into qualified settlement agreements with the following sign owners: Carter Pritchett Hodges, Inc. d/b/a Carter Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("Carter"), Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. d/b/a/ Clear Channel Outdoor ("Clear Channel"), and CBS Outdoor, Inc. (hereinafter "CBS"); and WHEREAS, at the time the qualified settlement agreements were approved by the City Commission, Section 479.07(9)(a), F.S. (2008), required new Outdoor advertising signs to be located at least one thousand five hundred feet from any other permitted sign on the same side on an interstate highway (hereinafter "1,500 foot spacing"); and WHEREAS, by House Bill 1021, the Florida Legislature recently amended s. 479.07(9)(c), F.S., in the 2009 Legislative Session, to include the City within a pilot program permitting new Outdoor advertising signs on an interstate highway to be located within one thousand feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of the interstate highway (hereinafter "1,000 foot spacing") under certain enumerated conditions, to wit: "(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1), there is established a pilot program in Orange, Hillsborough, and Osceola Counties, and within the boundaries of the City of Miami, under which the distance between permitted signs on the same side of an interstate highway may be reduced to 1,000 feet if all other requirements of this chapter are met and if: The local government has adopted a plan, program, resolution, ordinance, or other policy encouraging the voluntary removal of signs in a downtown, historic, redevelopment, infill, or other designated area which also provides for a new or replacement sign to be erected on an interstate highway within that jurisdiction if a sign in the designated area is removed; The sign owner and the local government mutually agree to the terms of the removal and replacement; and The local government notifies the department of its intention to allow such removal and replacement as agreed upon pursuant to subparagraph 2." and WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it in the best interest of the City to participate in the pilot program authorized by s. 479.07(9)(c), F.S. (2009), which would permit 1,000 foot spacing for Outdoor advertising signs under the guidelines provided in this Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section. 2. Pursuant to s. 479.07(9)(c)(2), F.S. (2009), the City hereby adopts a pilot program encouraging the voluntary removal of signs within the boundaries of the City, which provides, subject to the conditions stated below, for a new or replacement sign to be erected on an interstate highway, with 1,000 foot spacing, if other Outdoor advertising signs within the boundaries of the City are removed. Section 3. Any sign owner seeking permission to erect an Outdoor advertising sign with 1,000 foot spacing under this pilot program shall meet the following conditions: The sign owner must have a qualified settlement agreement with the City; Any application for a new sign under the pilot program must be in accordance with all terms and conditions of the qualified settlement agreement unless otherwise specified in these conditions; In no event may an application for a new sign under the pilot program exceed the limitation on the number of signs otherwise permitted under the qualified settlement agreement; The duration of the pilot program will not exceed the term of the qualified settlement agreement; No LED Sign may be erected with 1,000 foot spacing unless allowed by an amendment to the sign owner's qualified settlement agreement pursuant to applicable provisions of the Miami Zoning Ordinance; Sign owners must specify in advance of applying for a 1,000 foot spacing application the locations of the signs proposed to be removed or already removed; Sign owners may not be delinquent on any financial obligation to the City as per their qualified settlement agreement; All Outdoor advertising signs erected with 1,000 foot spacing shall be designed with aluminum plating (example attached) or be subject to design review per Manager's designee or designees. Section 4. Should s. 479.07(9)(c), F. S. (2009) be repealed by the Florida Legislature, this pilot program shall automatically expire. Section 5. The City Manager is authorized (1) to notify the Florida Department of Transportation of the City's intention to allow removal and replacement of Outdoor advertising signs under 1,000 foot spacing as provided in this Resolution. Section 6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor. Petitioner has not entered into "a qualified settlement agreement with the City" providing for the removal and replacement of outdoor advertising signs (as required by Section 3(a) of Resolution File Number 09-01061), nor has it at any time, much less "in advance" of having submitted its application (as required by Section 3(f) of Resolution File Number 09-01061), "specif[ied]" what sign(s) would be removed and replaced if the Proposed Sign were to be permitted. In or around November 2009, Petitioner retained the services of Mario Prats, a Florida-licensed surveyor since 1982, to measure how far the Proposed Sign location was to the nearest existing sign directly to the south of this location. When Mr. Prats went to the CanPartners Parcel, he did not see the stake that had been there in May 2009, when Mr. Barnes had done his measurements; nor did he see any other object marking the location of the Proposed Sign. He relied on a "drawing" to "approximate" where the sign would be. Using a "Topcon [measurement] device" and measuring, not along I-95, but the ramp to I-95, Mr. Prats determined that the distance between the Proposed Sign location and the closest sign south of this location was 1,032 feet. The only measurements offered and received into evidence to establish the distance between the Proposed Sign location and the nearest permitted sign (on the same side of the highway) were those taken by Mr. Barnes and Mr. Prats (as discussed above). Neither Mr. Barnes, nor Prats, determined that this distance was 1,500 feet or more.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a final order denying Petitioner's Application for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2010.
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute regarding the facts here involved. SR 60 is a federal aid primary highway and the signs are located within the city limits of Tampa, Florida. No permit has been issued and the sign structure is located 150 feet from a permitted sign. Accordingly the signs violate the spacing requirements of the statutes. This is really the only issue here involved; however, both parties presented evidence and Respondent submitted a proposed recommended order on whether or not an application for a permit for these signs should be approved. Resolving this issue would be premature and result in an advisory opinion. However, to preserve the evidence and save having to repeat the hearing when, and if, Respondent submits an application for a permit the following is submitted. The signs in question were erected within the city limits of Tampa in 1974. At the time these signs were erected no state permit was required. In 1976 an application was submitted for a permit for these signs. This application was returned to the applicant to resubmit on new forms and be sure to complete the application (Exhibit 2). The permitted sign, from which the instant sign is not the required spacing, is located on the right of way of the cross town expressway, and when construction starts, this sign will be removed.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether six outdoor advertising sign permits previously issued to Petitioner should be reinstated; or, if not, whether new permits should be issued for the six advertising facings (two on each of three sign structures) in Clearwater, Florida.
Findings Of Fact In June 1982, National lawfully erected an outdoor advertising billboard structure with two advertising facings located adjacent to State Road 60, 0.5 mile east of U.S. 19, pursuant to permit number 6868 issued by the City of Clearwater (the City), on October 22, 1981, and pursuant to state sign permit numbers AF604 and AF605 issued by DOT on November 18, 1981. In January 1983, National lawfully erected an outdoor advertising billboard structure with two advertising facings located adjacent to State Road 60, 0.4 mile east of U.S. 19, pursuant to permit number 10406 issued by the City on October 15, 1982, and pursuant to state sign permit numbers A1288 and A1289 issued by DOT on December 20, 1982. On or about July 1, 1984, National lawfully erected an outdoor advertising billboard structure with two advertising facings located adjacent to State Road 60, 0.3 mile east of U.S. 19, pursuant to permit number SN - 24060117 issued by the City on June 6, 1984, and pursuant to state sign permit numbers AM631 and AM632 issued by DOT on January 12, 1984. National maintained the three outdoor advertising billboard structures, containing six advertising faces, as identified in Findings of Fact numbers 1, 2 and 3, above (the "subject sign structures"), in the same condition as they were when erected. Following the lawful erection of the subject sign structures, National paid DOT the required annual permit fees through the year 1995, which allowed National to maintain and operate the subject sign structures through December 31, 1995. In March of 1995, DOT notified National that it was dropping state sign permit numbers AF604, AF605, A1288, A1289, AM631, and AM632 from its inventory because DOT had no jurisdiction over the segment of State Road 60, east of U.S. 19, adjacent to which the subject sign structures were located. The evidence was that DOT did so by serving on National a "Notice of Violation," citing DOT's lack of jurisdiction. The "Notice of Violation" gave National the opportunity to request an administrative hearing to contest DOT's action. National had no reason to question DOT's position on the jurisdictional issue but rather relied upon DOT's determination that DOT did not have jurisdiction in March of 1995. National chose not to request a hearing. The evidence was not clear as to when the DOT lost, or believed it lost, jurisdiction; the evidence also was not clear whether the DOT ever had, or believed it ever had, jurisdiction. At the time DOT dropped state sign permit numbers AF604, AF605, A1288, A1289, AM631, and AM632 from its inventory, DOT did not refund any permit fees to National, including the permit fees which National had paid for the 1995 calendar year. Consequently, permit numbers AF604, AF605, A1288, A1289, AM631, and AM632 were fully paid through December 31, 1995. On November 2, 1995, the section of State Road 60, east of U.S. 19, along which the subject sign structures are located became part of the National Highway System (NHS), and became jurisdictional for the purpose of permitting outdoor advertising billboard structures. On August 26, 1996, Kenneth M. Towcimak, as Director of DOT's Office of Right of Way, issued a memorandum to all District Outdoor Advertising Administrators addressing implementation of outdoor advertising control over roadways which were previously uncontrolled by DOT, and which became designated as part of the NHS on November 28, 1995. The Towcimak memorandum of August 26, 1996, required notification by registered mail, with return receipt requested, to all owners of such outdoor advertising billboard structures, that they must obtain state permits by January 1, 1997. There was no evidence as to whether DOT ever notified National by registered mail, with return receipt requested, that National was required to obtain state permits by January 1, 1997, for the subject sign structures. National filed six applications for the subject sign structures on or about December 29, 1997 (one for each of the two sign facings on each sign structure). On the part of the forms asking for the location of the sign, the six applications described the location of the signs, respectively, as: "Reinstated State Tag # AF 604-10"; "Reinstated State Tag # AF 605-10"; "Reinstated State Tag # AM 631-10"; "Reinstated State Tag # AM 632-10"; "Reinstated State Tag # AI 288-10"; and "Reinstated State Tag # AI 289-10." The applications contained copies of the permits previously issued by DOT for the operation and maintenance of the subject sign structures, copies of Landowner's permission and copies of City building permits for the original construction of the sign structures. Although the applications included copies of the City building permits for the original construction of the sign structures, DOT knew that the City no longer considered the sign structures to be legal under the City's code. In 1989, the City amended its code to place limitations on the size (height and area) and concentration (one per lot) of signs in the locations of the subject sign structures. The subject sign structures exceeded at least some of the new limitations; however, the code amendment provided for a seven-year "amortization" period, until January 19, 1996, during which the signs would be permitted as legal, non-conforming signs. At the end of the "amortization" period, the signs no longer were legal under the City code. Some of the information on National's six applications was incorrect or incomplete. But all of the incorrect or incomplete information could easily have been remedied, and "incorrect information" is not the real basis upon which DOT gave notice of intent to deny the applications. The real basis for the notice of intent was the illegality of the sign structures under the City code. On or about November 22, 1999, National filed with DOT a Petition for Reinstatement for each of the three signs (each petition seeking reinstatement of the two permits for the two advertising facings for each sign structure) under Section 479.07(8)(b)1-3, Florida Statutes (1999). On January 31, 2000, DOT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Petition for Reinstatement as to each of the three such petitions filed by National.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Department of Transportation enter a final order denying National's petitions for reinstatement and National's applications for new sign permits. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 3rd day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Aileen Reilly, Esquire Livingston & Reilly, P.A. Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kelly A. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Attention: James C. Myers Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation cited National Advertising Company for the maintenance of eight (8) outdoor advertising signs without current permit tags in violation of spacing requirements. The subject signs are listed on Exhibit 1 attached hereto and are owned and maintained by Respondent. The subject signs are located along I-95 in the vicinity of Orlando, Florida. The subject signs had valid county tags for 1972. The subject signs had no tags for 1973, but by agreement between Respondent and Petitioner this lack of 1973 tags has been disregarded. In the fall of 1974 Petitioner issued Respondent county tags for the subject signs. When affixing these tags to the signs Respondent discovered that there was some confusion over whether the signs were in the county or were in the city limits of Orlando. Respondent went to the City offices and asked if the signs were in the city limits and was told that the City did not know. Respondent then went to the County offices and was told that the signs were in the city. Respondent them communicated this information to Mr. Kennedy, an employee of the Department of Transportation in the DeLand office who agreed that the tags would not be put on the subject signs unless it was determined at some later date that the signs were actually located in the county and not in the city. At the time of this agreement Respondent was in possession of the 1974 county tags and was prepared to affix then to the subject signs. Because of the agreement however, the tags were not affixed to the subject signs. Confusion persisted over the question of whether the signs were located inside or outside of the city limits. In the fall of 1975, Respondent submitted a permit application for annual renewal for the subject signs requesting city tags. Petitioner granted this application and in late 1975 issued city tags for the subject signs. These tags have since been affixed to the subject signs and remain there at the time of this hearing. Representatives of Petitioner visited the Orange County Zoning Department on February 11, 1976 in attempt to determine whether the subject signs were located in the county or in the city. Petitioner's representatives determined that the signs were located in the county. During 1974 and 1975 there was a great deal of confusion on the part of both Petitioner and Respondent concerning the question of whether the subject signs were in Orange County or in the City of Orlando. Respondent, in good faith, diligently attempted to resolve the confusion. It appears however, that Petitioner and Respondent were not able to resolve the confusion until early 1976 and shortly before this hearing. Respondent made no application for 1976 permits for the subject signs before May 13, 1976.
Findings Of Fact In mid-1983 National had a properly permitted outdoor advertising structure bearing tag numbers AD-016-10 (south-facing sign) and AD-018-10 (north-facing sign) on the east side of U.S. 27 on leased property in Highlands County. In the latter part of 1983 this property was purchased by Young. On September 15, 1983, Young notified National that he was the owner of the property on which this sign was located and requested National to remove the sign. On September 16, 1983, Young applied for a permit to erect an outdoor advertising sign at this location. Young's application was disapproved by DOT on November 7, 1983, because DOT's records showed this to be a site occupied by a permitted sign (Exhibit 3). On or about October 26, 1983, after having received no response from National to his request for National to remove the sign, Young cut down the sign by sawing its supporting posts. On November 28, 1983, Young requested a hearing on the denial by DOT of his application for a permit for a sign at this site. On November 3, 1983, National obtained a lease (Exhibit 2) on property abutting Young's property and, on or about November 4, 1983, erected a sign on this property using the same faces from the fallen sign and attached the tags issued for its original sign. National's original lease dated 10/13/80 (Exhibit 1) with John Larino provided that either party could terminate the agreement on thirty days' notice. When Young purchased the property from Larino, he complied with the lease provisions regarding termination of the lease, including rebating the rent for the unused portion of the lease. Young erected a sign on this property on November 6, 1983, before his application had been denied and two days after National had re-erected its sign. Young obtained a county building permit on September 16, 1983, for the sign he subsequently erected. National has not applied for permit for the structure erected on the land leased from Boyd but attached permit tags AD-016-10 and AD-018-10 to the sign. The juxtaposition of the signs is as follows: proceeding north on U.S. 27, the first sign is owned by Young, next is the site of the former National sign, and then National's new sign. All of these locations are on the east side of U.S. 27, are less than 1,000 feet from a permitted sign to the south, are more than 500 feet from the sign, and all are within 180 feet of each other. When an applicant applies for a permit for a new sign, the site is inspected by a member of the Outdoor Advertising staff in the DOT district where the sign is to be located in company with the application, or the site is staked out by the applicant and viewed by a staff member. This inspection is to ascertain that the proposed sign will be located the required minimum distance from an existing sign and the proper distance from the roadway from which the sign will primarily be observed. DOT'S policy is that any relocation of the sign from the authorized location constitutes a new sign and requires the submission of a new application and approval therefor. The approved application for National's original sign was on U.S. 27 2.9 miles north of "Junction 17-Sebring." This location is on the property now owned by Young.
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
