The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s Outdoor Advertising Permit Applications should be denied due to application deficiencies, and because the signs are located adjacent to a designated scenic highway.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation regulates outdoor advertising signs located in proximity to the state highway system, interstate highway system, and federal-aid primary highway system. U.S. Highway 1 is a federal-aid primary highway that runs in a generally north/south direction along the east coast of Florida. In April l995, the Department issued outdoor advertising sign permit tag number BK459 to Town & Country Realty for an outdoor advertising sign (the “original sign”). The original sign was constructed adjacent to and on the west side of U.S. Highway 1 in Sebastian, Florida (the “property”). Records maintained by the Department during the period of the original sign’s existence, i.e., the Department’s outdoor advertising database from July 31, 2002, indicate that the original sign was located at U.S. Highway 1 milepost 18.496. That evidence, created contemporaneously with the sign’s existence, and before any controversy regarding the sign arose, is accepted as the most persuasive evidence of the precise location of the original sign. Mr. Pye testified that outdoor advertising sign permits are issued for a specific location, rather than for any location on a parcel of property. Given the precise spacing requirements for signs (see, e.g., section 479.07(9) and section 479.11), and the permitting of signs to the thousandths of a mile, Mr. Pye’s testimony is accepted. The original sign was located against a backdrop of vegetation. The original sign was single-sided with a north- facing sign face. As such, the original sign could normally be seen only from vehicles traveling southbound on U.S. Highway 1. On June 13, 2000, U.S. Highway 1, from milepost 14.267 to milepost 22.269 was designated as the Indian River Lagoon State Scenic Highway. The scenic highway designation included the stretch of U.S. Highway 1 on which the property fronts. On March 18, 2004, Henry Fischer & Sons, Inc./Town & Country Realty sold the property and the original sign to Petitioner. Daniel Taylor, a licensed real estate broker, worked on the transaction that led to Petitioner’s ownership of the property. He indicated that the property was desirable because it was clean, cleared, and demucked, and because it had the permitted original sign as an attractive asset, since the sign provided an income stream that could be used to pay property taxes. Eric Fischer, who was a director of Town & Country Realty, testified that, when the property was sold to Petitioner, the original sign was intended “to go with the property.” Upon the sale of the property and the original sign, Petitioner believed that Town & Country Realty would notify the state of the sale of the sign, and that he would thereafter be contacted by the state. Mr. Taylor testified that he and Petitioner called the Department and determined that Petitioner “could just step into the Fischer's shoes.” Based on the testimony of Petitioner and Mr. Taylor, Petitioner knew, or should have known, that the Department had regulatory oversight over the sign. An Outdoor Advertising Permit Transfer Request form is required to be submitted to the Department in order to transfer a sign permit from one person to another. No Outdoor Advertising Permit Transfer Request form was submitted for permit tag number BK459. Petitioner was never contacted by the state regarding the sale of the sign. Nonetheless, Petitioner continued to lease the sign and, as detailed herein, to replace and move the sign after the hurricanes of 2004. In September and October 2004, Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne struck Sebastian, Florida, very badly damaging the original sign. The wooden supports were flattened and no longer usable, and the sign was “pretty demolished.” Petitioner testified that he was told by an official of Indian River County to relocate the original sign to keep it from proximity of trees that could, in the event of a recurrence of the 2004 storms, topple and destroy the sign. The testimony, which was intended to prove the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that Petitioner was directed by a governmental representative to relocate the sign, was uncorroborated by evidence that would be admissible over objection in a civil trial. Petitioner hired a person to rebuild a sign on the property. When the sign was rebuilt, it was not replaced at its original location at milepost 18.496. Rather, the “rebuilt sign”1/ was moved to the cleared center of the property at milepost 18.535. Instead of a single-faced sign normally visible to northbound traffic, the rebuilt sign was a double-faced sign, with sides facing north and south. As such, the rebuilt sign could be seen by vehicles traveling U.S. Highway 1 in either direction. The original sign had four equally-spaced square support posts. The rebuilt sign has three equally-spaced round, and more substantial, support poles. The rebuilt sign has 11 horizontal stringers on each face, with each stringer secured to the three support posts. The stringers are uniform in appearance. The photographs of the rebuilt sign clearly show all of the stringers on one side, and some of the stringers on the other. The stringers show no evidence of having undergone storm damage, or of having been secured to support posts at different points along the stringers. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the stringers were -- as were the posts -- new, stronger, intact materials when the rebuilt sign was constructed, and were not materials salvaged from the remains of the original sign. The original plywood facing on the original sign was replaced with vinyl facings on the rebuilt sign. As a result of the foregoing, a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the rebuilt sign was a new sign erected of entirely new materials, and was not established as a result of maintenance or repair of the original sign. After the March 18, 2004, sale of the property and the post-hurricane erection of the rebuilt sign, Town & Country Realty continued to receive renewal billing from the Department for the original sign, along with several other signs owned by Town & Country Realty. Town & Country Realty, having sold the property on which the original sign was located and having no apparent interest in maintaining its other signs, did not pay the renewal bills. On January 31, 2005, the Department issued a Notice of Violation and Order to Show Cause Non-Payment (“NOV”) to Town & Country Realty. The NOV provided a grace period of 30 days within which the license and permits could be renewed, subject to a penalty. Town & Country Realty did not renew the license or permits. On March 7, 2005, the Department issued a Final Notice of Sign Removal, noting that Town & Country Realty had not made payment for renewal or request an administrative hearing to contest the NOV. As a result, Town & Country Realty was given the option of either petitioning for reinstatement of the license and permits, or removing the signs, including the sign bearing permit tag number BK459. Failure to exercise one of the options within 90 days was to result in the removal and disposal of the sign by the Department. On March 22, 2005, as a result of the continued requests for payment, Town & Country Realty submitted an Outdoor Advertising Permit Cancellation Certification form (“Cancellation Certification”) to the Department for permit tag number BK459. The Cancellation Certification was received by the Department on March 24, 2005. The Cancellation Certification was signed by Carl Fischer, president of the permit holder, Town & Country Realty. Mr. Fischer indicated that it was the permit holder’s intent “that the above-referenced Permit(s) be cancelled,” and that “all entities with a right to advertise on the referenced sign have been notified of the permit cancellation.” In the “Date Sign Removed” field of the form, Mr. Fisher wrote “see below.” In the bottom margin of the form, Mr. Fischer noted that the sign had been destroyed by one of the 2004 hurricanes, and that “new owner rebuilt sign and I removed BK459 tag and enclosed it.” The Cancellation Certification did not provide any information regarding the rebuilt sign or whether it was a sign that required a permit from the Department,2/ nor did it provide the name, address, or other identifying information regarding the “new owner.” It was not clear when Mr. Fischer removed permit tag number BK459, but it was nonetheless removed and returned to the Department with the Cancellation Certification. The Cancellation Certification was not intended by Mr. Fischer to affect Petitioner’s rights or interest in the rebuilt sign, but was a means of stopping renewal bills from being sent to Town & Country Realty. A Cancellation Certification may be conditioned upon issuance of a new sign permit, provided the Cancellation Certification is submitted along with an outdoor advertising permit application. The Cancellation Certification gave no indication that permit tag number BK459 was being conditionally canceled as a requirement for issuance of a new permit, and was not accompanied by an outdoor advertising permit application. On March 24, 2005, permit tag number BK459 was cancelled. From 2005 until June 2014, the rebuilt sign remained in place without inquiry from the Department, during which time Petitioner continued to lease and receive income from the sign. No transfer of or application for a sign permit for the rebuilt sign was filed, and no payment of annual fees was made. No explanation was provided as to why the March 7, 2005, Final Notice of Sign Removal was not enforced, or why the rebuilt sign, which has at all times been clearly visible from U.S. Highway 1, was allowed to remain in place for nearly a decade despite having no affixed permit tag. On or about May 28, 2014, Mr. Johnson, who was on patrol in the area, noticed that the advertising on the rebuilt sign had been changed. The change caught his attention, so he reviewed the Department’s outdoor advertising sign database to determine whether the sign was permitted. He confirmed that the rebuilt sign was not permitted. On June 5, 2014, Mr. Johnson affixed a “30-day green notice” to the rebuilt sign, which provided notice of the Department’s determination that the sign was illegal, and was to be removed within 30 days. Failure to remove the sign was to result in the removal of the sign by the Department. On June 9, 2014, the Department issued a Notice of Violation - Illegally Erected Sign (NOV) to Petitioner for the rebuilt sign. Petitioner did not submit a hearing request regarding the NOV. Rather, Petitioner called the telephone number that was listed on the NOV. He spoke with someone at the Department, though he could not remember who he spoke with. Petitioner was advised to file an application for the sign, a remedy that is described in the NOV. On December 1, 2014, Petitioner submitted Outdoor Advertising Permit Application Nos. 61203 and 61204 for the northward and southward faces of the Current Sign at milepost 18.535. Petitioner subsequently submitted additional information, including local government approval, in support of the application. On December 18, 2014, the Department issued a Notice of Denied Outdoor Advertising Permit Application for application Nos. 61203 and 61204 (“notice of denial”) to Petitioner. The bases for the notice of denial were that the property’s tax identification numbers submitted in various parts of the application did not match, thus constituting “incorrect information” in the application, and that the rebuilt sign is located on a designated scenic highway, thus prohibiting issuance of the permit. In the Pre-hearing Stipulation filed by the parties, the Department, though referencing “incorrect information” as a basis for the December 18, 2014, notice of denial, concluded its statement of position by stating that “[i]n sum, the Department properly denied [Petitioner’s application] as the sign is located on a scenic highway.” That focus on the scenic highway issue in the Pre-hearing Stipulation could, of itself, constitute a waiver and elimination of other issues, including that of incorrect information. See Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Broward Marine, Inc., 174 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). However, looking beyond the Pre-hearing Stipulation, the issue of incorrect information was not the subject of testimony at the final hearing, finds no substantial support in the documentary evidence, and made no appearance in the Department’s Proposed Recommended Order. The record in this proceeding does not support a finding that Petitioner provided “incorrect information” in his application, or that such “incorrect information” supports a denial of the application. On February 12, 2015, Petitioner filed a request for an informal administrative hearing with the Department to contest the notice of denial. The request for hearing included affidavits from Petitioner and Henry A. Fischer, a vice-president of Town & Country Realty, each of which provided that Town & Country Realty “submitted to the governmental authorities included but not limited to the Florida Department of Transportation notice of the transfer of the property and the sign permit to Mr. Daddano as well as his correct mailing address of 15 Lakeside Lane, N. Barrington, IL 60010.” It is not known whether the N. Barrington, Illinois, address was that of Mr. Fischer or that of Petitioner. Regardless, no such notice of transfer, or any other document bearing the referenced address, was introduced in evidence or discussed at the final hearing. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the March 22, 2005, Outdoor Advertising Permit Cancellation Certification, with the notation described in paragraph 30 above, was the only notice provided to the Department regarding the disposition of permit tag number BK459. By June 4, 2015, the advertising copy that caught Mr. Johnson’s attention had been removed and replaced with a “This Sign For Rent” covering. By no later than November 17, 2015, well after the Department issued the notice of denial, and without any other form of approval or authorization from the Department, Petitioner had the rebuilt sign “pivoted” in roughly its existing location, so that it is now parallel to U.S. Highway 1. As such, only the side of the sign facing U.S. Highway 1 is visible from the highway, making it a “one-way reader” as opposed to a two-sided sign. Nonetheless, unlike the original one-sided sign, which was perpendicular to the highway against a backdrop of vegetation, the pivoted rebuilt sign can be seen by traffic traveling in either direction on U.S. Highway 1.3/
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 denying Outdoor Advertising Permit Application Nos. 61203 and 61204. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 27th day of April, 2016.
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
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent should revoke Petitioner's sign permits and retrieve Petitioner's permit tags because Petitioner violated Sections 479.07(5) and 479.08, Florida Statutes, 1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 10.004(7), 2/ by allegedly removing its sign from its property and by failing to display the permit tag prior to removing the sign.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation formed in 1983 by Mr. Rodney Forton. Mr. Forton is the president and sole shareholder of Petitioner. Sometime in 1987, Petitioner entered into a management agreement with Cotee River Outdoor Advertising Company ("Cotee River"). The management agreement provided that Cotee River would construct a sign on property owned by Petitioner on U.S. highway 19 in New Port Richey, Florida (the "Cotee River sign"). Cotee River agreed to pay Petitioner a portion of the advertising revenues from the sign. The Cotee River Permit On May 26, 1987, Cotee River applied for an outdoor advertising sign permit from Respondent. The application described the Cotee River sign as a rectangular wood sign measuring 10 feet by 20 feet, with its lowest point approximately 15 feet above ground level and its highest point approximately 25 feet above the crown of the road. Respondent approved the application and mailed the approval to Cotee River on May 29, 1987. On June 3, 1987, Respondent located the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory at, Section 595, ". . . N/B 5.06 in F/N." The number "5.06" indicates that the sign is located at milepost 5.06 on U.S. 19. 3/ Mileposts describe the location of each sign by the distance of the sign from a fixed point. Each of Respondent's outdoor advertising inspectors measures the milepost for each sign in his or her territory using a distance measuring instrument. Respondent then enters the milepost for each sign in Respondent's sign inventory. The milepost of 5.06 that Respondent assigned to the Cotee River permit was incorrect. In May 1987, Cotee River constructed a sign on Petitioner's property pursuant to the permit granted by Respondent. The sign was a metal monopole sign rather than the wood sign described in the application. The Cotee River sign was not constructed at milepost 5.060. Cotee River rented the sign to outdoor advertisers. However, Cotee River failed to pay any portion of the advertising revenue to Petitioner, and the parties resolved the matter by mutual agreement. Petitioner and Cotee River agreed that Cotee River would release its right to manage the Cotee River sign in consideration for the right to manage a sign located on other property owned by Petitioner. The agreement provided that Petitioner would pay Cotee River a prescribed sum in exchange for the performance of specific duties by Cotee River. Cotee River failed to perform the duties specified in the agreement. Petitioner refused to pay the balance of payments. Petitioner sued Cotee River. Cotee River went into bankruptcy and was dissolved. Petitioner's Permit On July 14, 1992, Petitioner applied for an outdoor advertising sign permit for the Cotee River sign. The application described the sign as an existing rectangular, metal, monopole "sign in place," measuring approximately 10 feet by 20 feet. The application stated that the sign was first erected in May 1987. Respondent approved the application from Petitioner and mailed the approval to Petitioner on October 12, 1992. Respondent again incorrectly listed the location of the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory as, Section 595, ". . . N/B 5.060 in F/N." Respondent issued permit tag number BG341-25 to Petitioner. Although Petitioner used the Cotee River sign to generate advertising revenue, Petitioner never displayed any tag numbers on the sign. The tag numbers remained in Petitioner's files until sometime in 1995. Dr. Goluba's Permit At about the same time that Cotee River went out of business in 1992, Robert L. Goluba, D.D.S., owned property immediately adjacent to Petitioner's property. Prior to March 1993, an unidentified representative of Respondent contacted Dr. Goluba. The representative told Dr. Goluba that there were two signs on Dr. Goluba's property that were going to be taken down if the sign permits were not renewed. The representative mistakenly identified one of the two signs as the Cotee River sign. The representative went on to explain that Respondent could avoid the expense of taking down the two signs if Dr. Goluba obtained permits for the signs. Dr. Goluba wanted the advertising revenues and agreed to obtain the necessary permits. On March 2, 1993, Dr. Goluba applied for a sign permit for the Cotee River sign he mistakenly believed to be located on his property. The application described the sign as an "existing" rectangular, metal, monopole sign measuring approximately 10 feet by 24 feet, with its lowest point approximately 18 feet above ground level and its highest point approximately 30 feet above the crown of the road. The application stated that the sign was first erected in May 1987. Respondent approved the application from Dr. Goluba and mailed the approval to him on March 8, 1993. Respondent listed the location of the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory as, Section 595, ". . . N/M.P. 4.870 in F/N." Respondent incorrectly listed Dr. Goluba's permit in the sign inventory at milepost 4.870. On March 24, 1993, Respondent issued permit number BG960-35 to Dr. Goluba. Although Dr. Goluba never derived advertising revenue from the Cotee River sign, he did display his permit on the sign. Dr. Goluba inadvertently failed to pay the fee required to renew the sign permit in 1994 and, therefore, failed to display current permits on the sign. On April 11, 1994, Respondent issued a Notice of Violation, Failure To Display Permit Tag. The New Outdoor Advertising Inspector In early 1995, a new outdoor advertising inspector assumed responsibility for the territory in which the Cotee River sign was located. On April 11, 1995, the inspector conducted a field inspection to verify the mileposts and signs in the territory for which he was responsible. The inspector correctly identified the milepost of the Cotee River sign as milepost 4.980. He found no sign subject to regulation by Respondent 4/ located at milepost 5.060. Milepost 5.060 and 4.980 are approximately 422 feet apart. Relevant law prohibits the location of regulated signs within 1,000 feet of each other. 5/ No exceptions to 1,000 foot prohibition applied to the Cotee River sign. The inspector concluded that Petitioner had removed the wood sign originally permitted to Cotee River in 1987 and which Respondent had incorrectly listed in its sign inventory as being located at milepost 5.060. On July 12, 1995, Respondent issued to Petitioner a Notice Of Violation -- Removed Sign. On August 22, 1995, Respondent ordered the revocation of Petitioner's tag permit because Petitioner had allegedly removed the Cotee River sign from milepost 5.060. Respondent never issued a Notice of Violation to Petitioner for failure to display his tag numbers on the Cotee River sign. Petitioner protested the revocation of its permit and refused to return the permit tags to Respondent. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. In the meantime, Dr. Goluba's accountant had inadvertently failed to pay the permit fee for the Cotee River sign. Respondent placed the Cotee River sign on Respondent's "cutdown list" for failure to pay the required fees. On June 20, 1995, Respondent had the Cotee River sign cut down and removed. Respondent sent Dr. Goluba a bill in the amount of $4,990 for the cost of cutting the sign down and removing it. Prior to the date Respondent cut down and removed the Cotee River sign, Petitioner notified the inspector verbally and with written documentation that the sign was owned by Petitioner, located on Petitioner's property, and permitted to Petitioner. The inspector found that Respondent's records did not agree with Petitioner's records. The inspector informed Petitioner that the "cutdown order" came from Tallahassee and there was nothing the inspector could do. Dr. Goluba's tags were displayed on the Cotee River sign at the time it was cut down and removed. Ms. Maria Passanisi was the broker who managed the sign for Dr. Goluba. Ms. Passanisi was at the site when the sign was cut down and removed. She protested Respondent's action so vehemently that the police officers regulating traffic at the scene had to intervene to quell the disturbance. After Respondent cut down the Cotee River sign, Petitioner drove a stick into the ground where the sign had been located and displayed the permit tags for the removed sign on the stick. The tags were displayed on the stick at the time of the hearing. The Computerized Sign Inventory Respondent uses a computer system to maintain its sign inventory. The computer system does not accept the same milepost for two or more regulated signs. When Petitioner applied for its sign permit in 1992, Respondent was required to carry the Cotee River permit in the inventory as a void permit. The computer system would not accept the same milepost for Petitioner's permit and the void Cotee River permit. In order to circumvent the computer system, Respondent's supervisor of property management arbitrarily changed the milepost number entered for the Cotee River permit from milepost 5.060 to milepost 4.970. As late as September 20, 1993, Respondent's computerized sign inventory identified the Cotee River sign as being located at three incorrect mileposts. The inventory located the same sign permitted to Cotee River, Petitioner, and Dr. Goluba, respectively, at mileposts 4.970, 5.060, and 4.870. In 1995, the new outdoor advertising inspector correctly located the Cotee River sign at milepost 4.980. However, he mistakenly assumed that milepost 5.060 was the correct milepost for Petitioner's sign and erroneously concluded that Petitioner had removed its sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not remove the permitted sign and that the permits issued to Petitioner are valid. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Interstate Highway 95 (I-95) and State Road 16 (SR 16) intersect in St. Johns County, Florida. There is an interchange located at the intersection of I-95 and SR 16 in St. Johns County. The sign in question is the northernmost of three signs constructed by Respondent on properly zoned private property owned by Charles Usina located southwest of the above interchange and adjacent to I- 95, fifteen feet from the DOT right of way. There is an entrance ramp southwest of the interchange that permits traffic traveling eastbound on SR 16 to enter the southbound lane of I-95. Prior to submitting sign applications to DOT, Respondent's President, Robert Harry, met with Helen Hession at the interchange. Ms. Hession is a Property and Outdoor Advertising Inspector employed by DOT in its District II. Mr. Harry requested the meeting with Ms. Hession to obtain her interpretation of where to begin measuring along the southbound lane of I-95 under DOT's "500 foot rule." At that meeting, Ms. Hession gave her interpretation as to how to locate the point of beginning measurement according to Rule 14-10.009 F.A.C. as enforced by DOT through Section 479.02(1) F.S. The relevant language of Rule 14-10.009 F.A.C. provides: Outside incorporated towns and cities, no structure may be located adjacent or within five hundred (500) feet of an interchange, intersection at grade, or rest area. Said five hundred (500) feet shall be measured along the interstate from the beginning or ending of pavement widening at the exit from or entrance to the main-traveled way, or an interstate highway. Mr. Harry had been in the business of outdoor advertising for many years, but this was his first experience with this type of measurement using the "500 foot rule" at this type of interchange. Mr. Usina was present with Mr. Harry and Ms. Hession for their pre-application meeting on January 19, 1991. At that time, Ms. Hession indicated the point of beginning for them to measure from in order to utilize the "500 foot rule." Ms. Hession testified consistently and credibly that she had told Mr. Harry and Mr. Usina that the point to begin measuring the 500 feet pursuant to the rule was at the southern tip of the "gore" located between I-95 and the southbound entrance from SR 16. The "gore" is an asphalt triangle marked with white lines that is widest at the northern end where vegetation grows between the southbound lane and the entrance. According to her testimony, Ms. Hession stood in the middle of the gore, facing south, and stated that, under the rule, the measurement should start at the point of the triangle. Ms. Hession illustrated her formal hearing testimony by marking "Point 3" on Joint Exhibit 12, a demonstrative sketch of the interchange and environs, to show the location she had indicated to Mr. Harry and Mr. Usina as the point of beginning. Mr. Harry and Mr. Usina testified equally credibly and consistently that during their pre-application meeting, Ms. Hession had indicated to them that the point to begin measuring was located at the northern end of the gore, or the place at which the vegetation and the asphalt met. For purposes of illustration, they identified the point that Ms. Hession indicated during their pre-application meeting as being "Point 2" on Joint Exhibit 12. While it is clear that Mr. Harry was not seeking Ms. Hession's personal interpretation of "the 500 foot rule," but was seeking the agency's interpretation of the rule it has promulgated and is charged with administering, it is equally clear that Ms. Hession and Mr. Harry never had a meeting of the minds on the exact location that she told him to begin his measurements. Ms. Hession was in her bare feet and unwilling to move around with Mr. Harry and Mr. Usina on the roadway during part of their meeting, and Mr. Harry and Mr. Usina are not entirely consistent as to where everyone was standing at crucial times during their discussion. It is easy to see how a misunderstanding occurred. Mr. Harry made the measurements for Respondent's sign permit application beginning at "Point 2," the northern end of the gore where the end of the asphalt gore meets the vegetation between the entrance and the highway. This location is over 400 feet closer to the interchange than the point Ms. Hession testified she had indicated to Mr. Harry. On January 29, 1991, Respondent filed an application for a DOT permit to construct the sign in question and for the two other signs. The application for the sign in question stated that the sign would be located on private property adjacent to the southbound lane of I-95, fifteen feet (perpendicular measurement) from the right of way and .15 miles from the nearest intersection. Simple arithmetic shows .15 miles equals 792 feet. The sign in question was not actually in existence at the time the application was reviewed and approved. For purposes of DOT review and approval of Respondent's permit application, Mr. Harry had placed stakes bearing the FCOA initials on the DOT right of way at locations parallel to where he intended to erect the signs on Mr. Usina's property. 2/ When reviewing Respondent's application prior to permit approval, Ms. Hession did not rely on the location stated in the application, (.15 miles from nearest intersection), but made her own on-site measurements. She measured using a Distance Measuring Instrument (DMI) mounted in Bartley (Bob) Burch's truck. Mr. Burch drove the truck and observed the stakes but did not participate in making the measurements. Use of the applicant's stakes and DOT's own measurements is standard operating procedure for DOT in reviewing/approving permit applications because sometimes the applicants' measurements as made or as stated on the application are incorrect. Use of the DMI is also standard operating procedure for DOT in this process. The DMI in question was calibrated for accuracy by Mr. Burch immediately prior to Ms. Hession taking the measurements. During her pre-approval application review, Ms. Hession measured the distances between stakes bearing FCOA initials and the distance of the first stake from the SR 16 overpass. She also used the southern tip of the gore ("Point 3") as a reference point when taking her measurements. She measured to the first stake from SR 16 and found the first stake to be .3 miles distant therefrom. (TR-44-45, 53) She reset the DMI at zero and then measured 1500 feet south to the next stake; again reset the DMI at zero and measured 1500 feet south to the third and final FCOA stake. During her pre-approval application review, Ms. Hession found the first FCOA stake to be in a location consistent with her understanding that "Point 3" was the correct point of beginning for applying the "500 foot rule." The first stake was 500 feet south of the tip of the gore ("Point 3"). Using the measurements obtained with the DMI during the pre-approval application review, Ms. Hession approved Respondent's application for a sign .3 miles (not the applied-for .15 miles) south of SR 16, the intersection of SR 16 and I-95. Simple arithmetic shows .3 miles equals 1584 feet. Subsequent to the pre-application meeting with Ms. Hession, but prior to the issuance of the DOT sign permits/tags, Respondent entered into a ground lease agreement with Mr. Usina 3/ and also entered into outdoor advertising lease agreements for the sign (two sign faces) involved here. 4/ These advertising lease agreements were later voided due to a stop work order issued by DOT (See Finding of Fact 19). Respondent has subsequently mitigated some of its loss therefrom by entering into other leases at lower figures. Respondent's six applications for outdoor advertising sign permits were approved by Ms. Hession and processed through DOT's main office in Tallahassee. Permits and tags were issued by DOT on February 22, 1991. Issuance of these permits and tags constitutes final agency approval of the application in question. The permits authorized the erection of three signs in the vicinity of the I-95 and SR 16 interchange at .30, .58, and .86 miles respectively south of the SR 16 intersection. Respondent has never challenged the fact that each of these signs was permitted significantly further south and further away from the intersection than each of the locations applied for: .15, .43, and .72 miles, respectively. Respondent has never protested that the permit issued for the sign in question was not for .15 miles (792 feet) from the intersection, but was for .3 miles (1584 feet) from the intersection. Respondent timely and properly affixed the permit tags to the three monopole structures, as they were constructed. After the permits/tags were issued, Respondent borrowed $25,000 to erect the monopole/sign and Mr. Harry obligated himself to repay that loan with interest. Respondent began construction of the sign in question after February 22, 1991. After a monopole support for the sign in question was installed, two of Respondent's business competitors notified Tom Brown, DOT's Outdoor Advertising Administrator for District II and supervisor of Ms. Hession and Mr. Burch, that Respondent's northernmost sign in this location had been placed too close to the intersection/interchange. Mr. Brown reacted by issuing the stop work order on construction on May 2, 1991, which was posted on Respondent's monopole. The stop work order stated that the structure was within 500 feet of an intersection, in violation of Rule 10-14.009 F.A.C., as enforced through Section 479.02(1) F.S. Mr. Brown subsequently notified Mr. Harry by letter that pursuant to the authority of 479.105(1)(a), the stop work order had been issued because of an alleged violation of Chapter 14-10.009(B) SPACING OF SIGNS (2)(b) F.A.C. which is enforced through Florida Statutes Chapter 479.02(1). Respondent completed the sign in question after the stop work order was issued. Subsequent to her approval of the sign permits, Ms. Hession was instructed by Mr. Tom Brown that her interpretation of the agency rule was incorrect and that the proper place to have begun measuring for purposes of the "500 foot rule" was where the outside edge of the interchange entrance lane disappeared into the outside edge of the through lane of I-95. Bob Burch, a District II Outdoor Advertising Inspector of equivalent rank with Ms. Hession, testified that he interpreted the rule in a manner identical to Mr. Brown's interpretation. For purposes of illustration, this location is marked as "Point 1" on Joint Exhibit 12. The testimony of Tom Brown as to why his interpretation should be considered the agency's interpretation of the rule is sketchy but together with the corroboration of Bob Burch that this interpretation has been the standard application, it is accepted that DOT, as an agency, has interpreted the "500 foot rule" language to mean that a sign may not be located within 500 feet of the point at which the outside edge of an entrance disappears into the outside edge of a through lane on an interstate highway. This interpretation ("Point 1," for purposes of the instant case) is also consistent with the language of the rule and is the most reasonable reading of that language. "Point 2" is not consistent with the language of the rule. "Point 1," Mr. Brown's and Mr. Burch's interpretation of the rule's point of beginning, is furthest from the intersection, at the beginning of the through lane for I-95. "Point 3," Ms. Hession's original erroneous interpretation, is next furthest from the intersection, at the tip of the gore. "Point 2," Mr. Harry's mis-understanding of Ms. Hession's erroneous interpretation is closest to the intersection, where the gore meets the vegetation. Naturally, any distance measured from Mr. Harry's understanding of the point of beginning would be further north than, and closer to, the interchange than would be locations measured from either of the other two points. Immediately after the stop work order was issued, the sign in question was inspected and measured by Ms. Hession. This time she measured its location using a 100-foot tape. She used SR 16 and its overpass as her starting point. SR 16 and its overpass are permanent markers. (TR-47-49) She and Mr. Burch found that the monopole in question had been erected several hundred feet north of the location at which they had previously found Respondent's first stake. The monopole as constructed was less than 100 feet south of the tip of the gore, "Point 3," and north of "Point 1". According to these after-the-fact measurements, Respondent's erected monopole is not 500 feet or more south of either "Point 3" or "Point 1" and it is not located .3 miles from SR 16, as specified in the permit or even .3 miles from Points 1, 2, or 3.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order affirming the May 2, 1991 notices, revoking the permit for the single sign in question, and ordering the removal of the sign within 30 days. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 1992.
The Issue Whether DOT should revoke permits Nos. 721-02 and 722-02 because the nonconforming signs originally permitted have been replaced with a larger structure? Whether DOT is estopped to revoke the permits on these grounds where authorized personnel verbally assured the permittee, and others not in the outdoor advertising business who acted in reliance, that the replacement was not unlawful, and later stated in writing that the permits or one of them was valid?
Findings Of Fact Since 1968 (T.83) "prior to the 1972 agreement with the Feds to control outdoor advertising," (T.23) sign boards in Franklin County facing east and west, on the north side of U.S. Highway 98, a federal-aid primary highway, about 26.85 miles east of the city limits of Apalachicola, have apprised motorists of the proximity of Bill Miller Realty's offices. On October 1, 1987, members of the Saunders family acquired Lanark Plaza, a shopping center near the signpost but invisible from the highway. After learning they would not be allowed to erert a sign within 1,000 feet of Mr. Miller's signs, they proposed a two-faced "directory sign for the shopping center, and" (T.78) Mr. Miller's office, to replace the existing structure. Subject to DOT approval, Mr. Miller agreed to continue paying permit fees if they would erect and maintain the new "directory sign." Before anything was done to effectuate the agreement, Mr. Miller spoke to the late Carlton Millender, "a very blunt man . . . [who] did what was right," (T.99) and who had worked as DOT's outdoor advertising inspector since 1981 for the area around the Carrabelle maintenance yard, including the site at issue. He was authorized to represent DOT on questions concerning the placement of signs and the validity of sign permits, and had turned down more than one sign proposal Saunders family members had made. Mr. Millender told Mr. Miller and, later, Christine Saunders that they could replace the sign that then existed with another, taller sign, but that they could not put up a sign any wider than the eight foot width of the sign faces then standing. "[I]f you are going to increase some height to it, he said, I don't see any objection to it, but I would suggest you write DOT in Chipley and get their blessing or whatever." (T.79-80). Mr. Miller did write DOT's offices in Chipley, to the attention of Milford C. Truette, and told him what [they] wanted to do, and that [he] had talked to the supervisor here, and it was almost getting time for renewing the permit anyhow. . . . [H]e requested that if there [was] any increase in the fee for raising the heigh[t] of the sign, please let [him] know. . . . (T. 80) He received no reply, which he told Mr. Millender. Meanwhile Ms. Saunders "had a man in Panama City draw the design" (T.96) and, toward the end of October or the beginning of November, showed Mr. Millender the completed design, Respondents' exhibit No.3., depicting a sign eight feet wide and about nine feet tall, five feet taller than the sign it was to replace. Mr. Saunders "presented a copy of the plans to Mr. Millender . . . [and they] talked at length about the enlargement of the sign, that it would not be made any wider, but it would be made taller. . . ." (T.101) "When he said that all [they] needed to do was send a letter stating that it was going to be enlarged, requesting a fee change, [she] took that to mean everything was in order," (T.106) and contracted to have the sign built. Eleven hundred dollars or more in materials went into the sign, which ended up being eight feet wide and approximately eleven feet tall. The Saunders worked on it themselves and they hired a laborer at ten dollars an hour. In mid-February of 1988, they took the old sign down and put the new sign up in its place, "within the jurisdiction of the DOT because it's . . . within a certain distance of highway 98." (T. 36) . The sign stands on land owned by Arthur T. Allen, Jr. "on the corner of the . . . second tee" (T. 87) of the Lanark Village Golf Club's golf course. The privately owned club charges fees for use of the course, which lies within an area designated R-1 on detail map B of the Franklin County zoning map, DOT's Exhibit No.3., adopted by reference on June 22, 1981. Nobody signed or sealed the detail map, which was not available for review until the night the County Commission adopted it. Although James T. Floyd, formerly the county planner, testified the detail map was in a sense unreliable and inaccurate, "it is the only document available" (T.72) to show existing zoning. According to the map, not only the shopping center, which "has been commercial since the 1940's, really" (T.72) but the pumping station, as well, lie within the R-1 residential zone. The parties stipulated that the future land use map filed and adopted with Franklin County's comprehensive plan in 1981 designated the area "low density residential." (T.76) On March 2, 1988, DOT's Mr. Truette visited the sign. At some point, Mr. Truette had spoken to a Mr. Kubicki, who was concerned about the legality of the new structure. After the site visit, on March 10, 1988, with knowledge of the new sign's size, and that the new structure was taller than the old, having been informed of the zoning in the area, and fully aware of the controversy surrrounding the sign, Mr. Truette wrote Mr. Floyd, then still in Franklin County's employ: "This is to inform you that state sign permit number 721-01 is a valid permit." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. At hearing, Mr. Truette said he had meant only that the permit had not yet been revoked. It was he who signed the notice of violation on June 3, 1988.
Recommendation In accordance with the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That DOT dismiss the notice of violation, and take no action against permits Nos. 721-02 and 722-02. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 21st day of February, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, and 3 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, except that Truette's meeting with Floyd was not the first contact he had with anybody about the sign. Whether or not the record established the month of Mr. Millender's death, the parties agree that he died in January. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 27 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 1, it was not clear just which members of the Saunders family owned what. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 12, while no money is to be paid Mr. Miller, he is to receive consideration in the form of upkeep. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 21, they spent approximately $1100 plus whatever they paid the laborer. Respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 26 has been rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 John F. Gilroy, Esquire Bruce Culpepper, Esquire Haben and Culpepper, P.A. Post Office Box 10096 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the State of Florida's regulatory agency for advertising along state and federal highways. On January 1, 1995, Petitioner was the holder of three State of Florida outdoor advertising sign permits (among others): AU204-35, BH947-25 and BH948- 25. The sign covered by Permit No. AU204-35 (hereinafter "Sign A") was a wooden billboard located approximately 100 yards east of a weight station on Interstate 4. As trucks leave the weight station heading east, the sign was to their right. The sign covered by Permits No. BH948-25 and BH947-25 (hereinafter "Sign B) is an electrified high-rise sign located at the interchange of Interstate 4 and State Road 39. The sign is on the south side of the interchange. The signs at issue both serviced a truck stop on the north side of the interchange at Interstate 4 and State Road 39. Sign A also serviced a fueling operation at Interstate 4 and Park Road. About 27,000 outdoor advertising permits are listed within the Respondent's outdoor advertising system. Outdoor advertising sign permit renewal fees are due on January 15 of each year for all State of Florida outdoor advertising sign permits. If a permit holder's renewal fees are not received by the Respondent on or before January 15 of any given year, its outdoor advertising sign permits expire. By November 1 of each year, the Respondent sends a billing statement to every permit holder notifying them of the fees which will become due in January of the following year. Petitioner paid its permit renewal fees in 1994. In November of 1994, the Respondent sent to Petitioner a billing statement listing the fees which would become due on January 15, 1995, for its outdoor advertising sign permits. This billing statement included, among others, Petitioner's permits numbered AU204-35, BH947-25 and BH948-25. (Hereinafter referred to collectively as "Permits"). On January 15, 1995, permit renewal fees for Petitioner's Permits became due. If an outdoor advertising sign permit holder has not paid its permit renewal fees by January 15 of a given year, then by February 1 of that year it is the Respondent's practice to mail to the holder a notice of violation for nonpayment. The Respondent sends an average of 350 notices of violation each year. The notice of violation is sent certified mail, return receipt requested, and the article number on the certified mail card is documented on the bottom of the notice of violation. The notice of violation has a copy of the affected permits attached to it indicating the permits to which it applies. The notice is folded and inserted into a window envelope so that the address shows through the window. The envelope is then sealed and a certified mail card with the vendor's name on it is attached The notice of violation notifies the permit holder that the Respondent has not received its permit renewal fees and that the listed permits will expire if the holder does not submit its permit fees, including a ten (10) percent delinquent fee, within thirty (30) days. Petitioner's permit renewal fees were not received by January 15, 1995. On February 1, 1995, the Respondent mailed to Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested, a Notice of Violation and Order To Show Cause- Non-payment. (Hereinafter referred to as "Notice of Violation"). The Respondent's Notice of Violation was mailed to Petitioner at Post Office Box 945140, Maitland, Florida 32751. Petitioner's correct mailing address is Post Office Box 945140, Maitland, Florida 32795-5140. The article number on the certified mail card is documented on the bottom of the Notice of Violation. The Respondent's Notice of Violation had a copy of the affected permits attached to it indicating the permits to which it applied. The Respondent's Notice of Violation notified Petitioner that the Respondent had not received its permit renewal fees for its Permits and that they would permanently expire if Petitioner did not submit its permit fees, including a ten (10) percent delinquent fee, within thirty (30) days. The Respondent's Notice of Violation notified Petitioner that failure to pay its permit fees within the thirty (30) day period would subject its signs to immediate removal by the Respondent; and that Petitioner had a right to request an administrative hearing within thirty (30) days of the date of the Notice. Petitioner did not pay its permit fees or request an administrative hearing within the time limit set out in the Respondent's Notice of Violation. On February 23, 1995, Respondent received the 1995 renewal fees for an account identified as "Texaco Star Enterprise," which covers other permits, and that account is in good standing. The Respondent returned the check submitted by Petitioner on August 29, 1995 for the Star Enterprise (Petitioner) account. Star Enterprise is an organization which refines, distributes and markets petroleum products under the Texaco brand throughout twenty-six states. In 1994 and 1995 Star Enterprise owned approximately 400 locations in the State of Florida which were operated for the purpose of selling Texaco products to the general public. Star Enterprise operates some retail locations through its own salaried employees. These salaried operated retail outlets are known by the acronym "SORO." The SORO group is responsible for maintenance on SORO locations. Star Enterprise also owns retail locations which are operated by third parties under a lease. Star Enterprise presently oversees the day to day operations of its organization in the State of Florida from its office located at 650 South North Lake Boulevard, Suite 450, Altamonte Springs, Florida. In approximately 1993, Star Enterprise began to downsize and reorganize its operations. In December 1993, Star Enterprise moved its regional office to its current location in Altamonte Springs from 555 Winderly Place, Maitland, Florida. Whereas the Maitland office had operated with approximately 130 employees, only 34 employees moved to the Altamonte Springs location. Downsizing has continued, with approximately 25 persons still employed in the Altamonte Springs office. Since moving to its Altamonte Springs office, Star Enterprise has received mail at its physical location on North Lake Boulevard and at Post Office Box 945140 at the Maitland, Florida Post Office. Mail is delivered to the North Lake Boulevard location by the postal service and through various courier services. On weekdays mail is retrieved at the Maitland Post Office by a courier service and delivered by courier to Star Enterprise at the North Lake Boulevard office. Budget Couriers of Florida, Inc. (hereinafter "Budget Couriers"), is a delivery service operating throughout the Orlando metropolitan area. Budget Couriers' business is retrieving packages and mail from the Post Office and delivering them to its clients. Star Enterprise is a client of Budget Couriers. Budget Couriers picks up the mail for Petitioner at the Maitland Post Office. The mail is not retrieved from a box with a key, but is picked up at the back door area in plastic bins. A post office employee brings the mail bin to the courier at the dock and he signs for it. Budget Courier picks up mail at the location for several clients. Each one has separate bins for their mail. Budget Couriers acts in the capacity of Petitioner's agent for purposes of the retrieval and delivery of mail sent to Petitioner at its Post Office Box 945140 in Maitland, Florida. When an article of certified mail is sent to one of Budget Couriers' clients, Budget Couriers' employee signs for the article on behalf of that client. Petitioner authorizes Budget Couriers to sign for and retrieve certified mail on behalf of Star Enterprise. The certified mail is then placed in the client's bin. After retrieving the mail bins at the post office, the courier delivers the mail to each client, including Petitioner. When the mail is delivered the courier obtains a receipt for the contents of the entire bin. The receipt does not identify specific pieces of mail, including certified mail; nor is an inventory of the mail provided. When the Respondent prepares a notice of violation to be sent to a delinquent permit holder, the article number on the certified return receipt card is documented on the bottom of the notice of violation. The Respondent's Notice of Violation was received by Petitioner at its Post Office Box 945140 in Maitland, Florida, on February 6, 1995. The certified return receipt accompanying the Respondent's Notice of Violation was signed on behalf of Petitioner by an employee of Budget Couriers, Billy Hadd. The article number on the certified return receipt accompanying the Respondent's Notice of Violation corresponds to the number documented on the bottom of the Respondent's Notice of Violation. Petitioner acknowledged its receipt of the mail delivered by Budget Couriers on February 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1995. Star Enterprise elected to have its mail retrieved from the Post Office by a contract courier. Petitioner did not receive an inventory of the individual articles of mail retrieved from its Post Office box and delivered to it by Budget Couriers. Petitioner received the Notice of Violation on February 6, 1995. The Respondent did not receive any payment in response to the Notice of Violation sent to Petitioner regarding its delinquent permit renewal fees. Petitioner had prior knowledge of the outdoor advertising sign permit renewal process. Petitioner has been renewing its outdoor advertising sign permits as far back as 1989. The action taken by the Respondent regarding Petitioner's Permits was consistent with the action it takes regarding any other outdoor advertising sign permit holder which fails to pay its outdoor advertising sign permit renewal fees in response to a notice of violation issued by the Respondent. It is the policy of Respondent not to accept late payments for expired outdoor advertising sign permits. Respondent believes that acceptance of late payments for expired outdoor advertising sign permits would violate the agreement between the Governor and the U. S. Department of Transportation. ( Hereinafter referred to as "Agreement"). Violation of the Agreement could possibly subject the State of Florida to penalties equal to ten (10) percent of the Federal participation in transportation projects within the State of Florida, which at this time would amount to a penalty of approximately sixty (60) million dollars per year. One of the key elements of the outdoor advertising regulatory process is to treat all permittees the same. Petitioner received the same treatment from the Respondent as would any other permittee under the same circumstances. Outdoor advertising sign permit renewal is a yearly occurrence and Petitioner was no stranger to the permit renewal process including the procedure for delinquent permit renewal fee payments. Petitioner failed to pay its outdoor advertising sign permit renewal fees on two other occasions in the past. On both of these occasions Petitioner received the Respondent's notice of violation at the same address as the violation at issue. On these past occasions Petitioner paid its renewal fees within the reinstatement period and its permits were reinstated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Petitioner's outdoor advertising sign permits have permanently expired. RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining that the request for hearing filed by Petitioner was not timely filed; and denying its request to reinstate two outdoor advertising sign permits. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, 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 6th day of September, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0340T To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 (in part), 11 (in part), 12, 17, 18 (in part), 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 (in part), 34, 35 (in part), 36 (in part), 37 (in part), 39 (in part), 40 (in part), 46 (in part), 47, 48 (in part), 70 (in Preliminary Statement), 71 (Preliminary Statement in part), 74. Rejected as subsumed or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs 6, 8 (in part), 9, 10, 11 (in part), 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 (in part), 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 33 (in part), 35 (in part), 36 (in part), 37 (in part), 38, 39 (in part), 40 (in part), 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 45, 46 (in part), 48 (in part), 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71 (in part), 72, 73, 75 (conclusion), 76, 77 (conclusion of law). Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (in part), 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,22, 25, 26 (in part), 27, 28, 29, and 30. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph 10 (in part), 12. Rejected as subsumed or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs 23, 24, and 26 (in part). COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth C Wheeler, Esquire Johnson and Bussey, P.A. Post Office Box 531086 Orlando, Florida 32853-1086 Murray M. Wadsworth, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben W. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether Respondent's outdoor sign permit should be revoked because the original sign has been destroyed by an Act of God, as alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this sign permit dispute, Petitioner, Department of Transportation (DOT), seeks to revoke the permit for an off- premise outdoor advertising sign owned by Respondent, North Florida Pecan 1 & 2, Inc. (Respondent), on the grounds that the original sign was destroyed by a fire in June 1998, the newly rebuilt sign has lost its nonconforming status, and any rebuilt sign is now illegal. In response to these charges, Respondent contends that the fire that destroyed the sign was an act of criminal mischief or arson, rather than an Act of God, and thus the sign still qualifies for a nonconforming status. The sign in question is located 12.2 miles north of the Flagler County line on the west side of Interstate 95 (I-95) facing south, and is perhaps a mile or so south of the intersection of State Road 207 and I-95 (intersection) in St. Johns County, Florida. Respondent does not own the property where the sign is located, and it conducts no other business activities on that property. The property on which the sign is located is zoned Open Rural by St. Johns County (County), and it is not designated predominately for commercial or industrial uses by the County under the County's future land use map, comprehensive plan, or zoning ordinances. The sign is used to advertise Respondent's combination gas station and "open-area fruit market" located "just off" the intersection. The parties have stipulated that the sign was originally constructed more than 20 years ago before the current sign regulations became effective; under the present law, it would be a nonconforming sign and illegal. On May 27, 1998, a thunderstorm occurred in St. Johns County, resulting in between one-quarter and one-half inch of rainfall in the area. Due to a lightning strike on a tree, a 2-acre fire started approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the intersection in the vicinity of the sign. Although firefighters believed they had "knocked out" the fire within a day or two, the fire continued to smoulder under the dampened top layer of organic matter for several weeks until June 15, 1998, when it "worked its way back to the surface," broke out again, and cleared the containment line of the earlier fire. Aided by a light wind from the southeast and extremely dry conditions, the fire quickly spread eastward at the rate of 1,000 to 1,500 feet every 15 minutes and consumed several hundred acres, including the land on which Respondent's sign was located, before it was brought under control. That fire is commonly referred to as the Fort Peyton fire. In determining the cause of the Fort Peyton fire, forestry officials could not find any indicators of arson, and visual burn patterns clearly indicated that the new fire's origin was where the May 27 fire had begun. Therefore, it was officially classified as a "rekindle or breakout" of the May 27 fire, which was started by lightning. Put another way, the fire was the result of an Act of God, which is "the sudden manifestation and forces of nature." On either May 30 or June 5, 1998, depending on whether court or forestry records are accepted as being the most accurate, a fire began in Flagler Estates, which, "as the crow flies," lies approximately 12 to 15 miles southeast of the Fort Peyton fire. The Flagler Estates fire, however, was the result of an unattended illegal burn which was started by three individuals and went out of control. The fire was brought under control the same evening by firefighters, but only after some 450 surrounding acres were destroyed. The three individuals were later charged with arson. Respondent established that the prevailing winds during May and June 1998 were from the southeast and that "spoilers" or "floaters" (hot debris) from existing fires can sometimes float in the air and ignite new fires several miles away. Indeed, Respondent's investigator observed spoilers from inland fires floating through the air some 8 or 9 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean while he was fishing during that period of time. Accordingly, Respondent contends that it is just as likely that a spoiler floated northeastward from the Flagler Estates fire on May 30, 1998, and ignited the Fort Peyton blaze, some 12 to 15 miles away. If this theory is accepted, it would mean that the Fort Peyton fire would be attributable to arson, and not to an Act of God. The foregoing assumption has been rejected for several reasons. First, spoilers from the Flagler Estates fire did in fact ignite several spot fires in the area, but all of these spot fires occurred on the same day as the fire started and were within an eighth of an mile from the Flagler Estates perimeter. Second, it is highly unlikely that a spoiler would float up to 15 miles and then lie dormant for two weeks before igniting the Fort Peyton fire. Finally, the theory goes counter to the more persuasive evidence given by the supervising forester who investigated the Fort Peyton fire and concluded that it was an outbreak of the earlier fire that was started on May 27, 1998. After the sign was destroyed, Respondent rebuilt the sign at the same location using substantially the same materials that had composed the sign before it burned. However, the materials used to rebuild the sign were not part of the sign structure which was burned in the Fort Peyton fire. The new sign is the same size, shape, and height of the destroyed sign.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order confirming that the outdoor advertising sign maintained by North Florida Pecan 1 & 2, Inc., under sign permit number BR 252-55 is illegal and must be removed. The permit should also be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day 17th of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 J. Stephen Alexander, Esquire 19 Old Mission Avenue St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Robert M. Burdick, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela S. Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to an outdoor advertising sign permit to be located in an unzoned commercial/industrial area and whether the sign site qualified as an unzoned commercial/industrial area.
Findings Of Fact Lamar is in the business of erecting, operating and maintaining outdoor advertising signs in Northwest Florida. The proposed sign’s location was in Walton County along US Highway 331, .1 mile south of Bay Grove Road, a collector road. U.S. Highway 331 is a federal aid primary highway and therefore, a state permit is required for signs placed along its path. According to a Walton County zoning plan, the proposed sign’s location was in an area zoned Rural Village on both the Future Land Use Map and Land Development Regulations. The June 2006 version of the Walton County Land Development Code provides: F. Rural Village (RV): This district is a mixed use district which permits predominately residential development up to a maximum of two units per acre. Residential uses shall account for approximately 95 percent of the total land area within any area designated on the FLUM for this District. The remaining area may be utilized for related and compatible commercial uses. Commercial uses may occupy up to five percent of the total land area designated on the FLUM for this District. Commercial land uses shall be limited to collector and arterial road intersections, intersections of subdivision collectors and arterial or collector road, and areas that are specifically designated Commercial on the FLUM. Not more than 15 percent of the total frontage on both sides of a collector or arterial road shall be occupied by commercial uses within this district. The Walton County Land Development Code also defined general commercial activity as including inventory storage. The proposed sign’s location met the requirements for commercial use under the RV designation. Walton County certified to the Department that the designated parcel for the proposed outdoor advertising sign was Rural Village and that the primary use of the area under the current comprehensive plan was agriculture, general agriculture, residential, civic uses, and residential subdivision. Walton County also confirmed that the proposed outdoor advertising sign would be in compliance with all duly adopted local ordinances and would be issued the necessary County permit for such sign. The Walton County Property Appraiser’s website listed the usage of the proposed outdoor advertising sign location as a “service station.” The service station building was still on the property, but had not been used as such for a number of years. Billy Wayne Strickland, the state outdoor advertising administrator of the Department, processed the outdoor advertising permit applications submitted by Lamar. Mr. Strickland determined after a review of Lamar’s applications that the site, being designated as Rural Village with mixed uses allowed, met the need for evaluation under the use test for unzoned commercial or industrial areas contained in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The use test is set forth in Florida Statutes 479.02. Under the test, the Department examines a proposed sign’s location under the applicable current land use designation and future land use designation to determine if the outdoor advertising site meets the use criteria set forth in the statute for unzoned commercial and industrial areas. The use criteria for such unzoned property require that three commercial or industrial activities be located within 1600 feet of each other, with one of those activities located on the same side of the road and within 800 feet of the proposed sign’s location. Distances are measured from building to building. Additionally, the commercial or industrial activity must be visible from the highway. Mr. Strickland visited the property in order to determine if the proposed sign location met the requirements of the use test. He observed that the proposed sign’s site holds an abandoned-looking gas station and a house with a large fenced in area. Leaking fuel tanks made it unlikely the service station would be restored. There were several small, boarded-up, “fishing style cabins” associated with the fenced property. The fenced area had a sign posted for North Florida Development, Inc., a construction company. There was a number for the company listed on the sign. On a tree to the right of the fence was a sign that read “Private Road Keep Out.” In general, the area behind the fence appeared to be used for storage of building materials and equipment such as trucks and trailers. Except for the area behind the fence, the North Florida Development property was clearly visible from the highway. Mr. Strickland called the phone number on the sign and was informed that North Florida Development, Inc., that he was calling, was in Miramar Beach, Florida, and that North Florida Development was storing equipment and trucks at the U.S. Highway 331 location for a job they were doing in Destin. There was no one present at the house or the adjacent buildings. The North Florida Development buildings and fenced area were within 800 feet of the proposed sign’s location and were on the same side of the road as the proposed sign’s location. Because of the lack of activity, Mr. Strickland concluded that the North Florida Development property was not a commercial activity which was visible from the highway. On the opposite side of the Highway, Mr. Strickland observed two businesses within a 1600-foot zone that met the criteria of the use test. Additionally, while at the site, Mr. Strickland issued a Notice of Violation for the on-premises sign of North Florida Development. The Notice required the sign to be removed. Later, after the hearing in this matter, this action was dismissed by the Department. On November 29, 2006, the Department issued a written denial of the outdoor advertising sign site permit applications for the following reasons: (1) the sign site was not permitted under the local land use designation of site per Section 479.111(2), Florida Statutes, and (2) the sign site did not qualify as an unzoned commercial/industrial area per Section 479.01(23), Florida Statutes. On the morning of April 5, 2007, Mr. Strickland, again visited the proposed sign’s site. He observed essentially the same things he observed during his first visit to the location, except the large North Florida Development sign that had been on the entrance to the fenced area had been removed. Andrew White, a regional inspector with the Department, inspected the North Florida Development site on May 17, 2007, and photographed the area. The sign for North Florida Development had been removed, but the keep-out signs were still in place. Photographs taken from the street revealed a partial view of a storage trailer through the open fence. On the morning of June 6, 2007, just prior to the hearing, Mr. Strickland again visited the proposed sign’s location and observed no activity at the location. He could only see a trailer partially visible beyond the privacy fence. Larry Wayne Adkinson, vice president of North Florida Development and a general contractor licensed in Mississippi, lives and works on the property of the proposed sign’s location. Mr. Adkinson testified that the property totaled five and a-half or six acres and consisted of his home, his office, the service station and five fishing cabins. He and his business have been at this location for at least 12 years. Work has been delayed on repairing the service station based, in part, upon the fact that the state was seeking to condemn a portion of the property where the service station was located for the expansion of U.S. Highway 331. Mr. Adkinson uses the property as an inventory site, storing construction materials, heavy equipment, landscaping materials, and other bulk material related to his business. The site contained three semi-tractor trailers that were utilized to store construction materials, including doors, windows, and heavy equipment and equipment and materials for a landscape business owned by Mr. Adkinson. The landscape business stored tractor-trailers, small-equipment trailers, plants, brick pavers, scaffolding and rock molds. The site’s storage of inventory and business activity was very visible to people who lived in the neighborhood around the North Florida Development property. The visibility was such that, in 2006, the neighbors complained about the view to the County. The County, in turn, asked Mr. Adkinson to place a fence around the area to block the view of people passing through the area. Mr. Adkinson complied with the County’s request and built the privacy fence that Mr. Strickland observed. Mr. Adkinson also placed the company’s business sign on the fence to identify the property as North Florida Development’s business property. Most of the loading and unloading of material and equipment occurs in the early morning and evening hours. At those times, there is considerable activity at the site with trucks and equipment entering and leaving the property. Mr. Adkinson’s testimony was confirmed by the testimony of Chad Pickens, who routinely drives by the site during those hours. Mr. Strickland never visited the property during those busy hours, and therefore, did not observe the business activity associated with the site. Mr. Adkinson uses two of the fishing cabins as machine shops for his company’s equipment and tools. The shops contain drill presses, welding and repair equipment. Entry is gained through the rear doors of the cabins. He left the front of the cabins boarded up to prevent theft and storm damage. Mr. Adkinson also receives business mail at the U.S. Highway 331 location and has employees and job applicants report to that location. Clearly, the North Florida Development property is a viable and on-going business that conducts one of its business activities on the property on which the proposed sign is to be located. The activity is visible from the highway, although such activity ebbs and flows through the day. The property, therefore, meets the land use test requirements of Florida Statutes, and the Petitioner’s applications should be granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Department of Transportation enter a Final Order granting the applications for outdoor advertising sign permits filed by Lamar Advertising of Fort Walton Beach. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 13th day of December, 2007. COMPLETE COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Schwartz, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James E. Moore, Esquire Post Office Box 1622 Crestview, Florida 32536 David M. Littlejohn, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 James C. Meyers Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Stephanie Kopelousos, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Alexis M. Yarbrough, General Counsel Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact In August of 1995 Champion International Corporation gave Petitioner permission to place a sign advertising The Outpost on property that Champion owned in Walton County. The sign was to be located at the corner of the south side of State Road 20 and Black Creek Boulevard. State Road 20 is a federal-aid primary road. Black Creek Boulevard is a county maintained road. Petitioner subsequently erected a 4' X 8' outdoor advertising sign on Champion's property. The sign was located on the south side of State Road 20, two miles east of U. S. 331 and twenty (20) feet west of the intersection of State Road 20 and Black Creek Boulevard. The sign was double-sided with east and west faces. On September 1, 1995, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent requesting a permit for the 4' X 8' sign already erected on the south side of State Road 20 and twenty (20) feet west of the intersection of State Road 20 and Black Creek Boulevard. On September 22, 1995 Respondent issued a Notice of Denied Application informing Petitioner that it could not have a permit for a sign on the south side of State Road 20 and twenty (20) feet west of the intersection of State Road 20 and Black Creek Boulevard. Respondent denied this permit for two reasons: (a) the location was zoned "agricultural" which was an un-permittable land use designation; and (b) the proposed sign was located on the state's right-of-way. After receiving the Notice of Denied Application, Petitioner removed the 4' X 8' sign. On or about January 29, 1996 Petitioner filed a sign permit application with the Walton County Building Department. The application was for an off- premises sign to be located fifty (50) feet south of State Road 20 along Black Creek Boulevard. The application states that: If the proposed sign is located along a federal aid primary road, a permit from the Florida Department of Transportation (904/638-0250) must be obtained before a Walton County building permit is issued. The applicant must obtain a letter from Walton County to submit to the Department of Transportation to submit with the application. Petitioner did not apply for a permit from Respondent for this proposed sign. The Walton County Building Department issued Petitioner a permit to erect the proposed sign on January 29, 1996. Petitioner subsequently erected a second sign on the south side of State Road 20, one foot off of the right-of-way, and about fifty (50) feet from the intersection of State Road 20 and Black Creek Boulevard. It was 8' X 8', two-sided, mounted in concrete, with red, black and white copy advertising The Outpost on both sides. The sign was placed so that it could be read by east and west bound traffic along State Road 20. Only the east face of the sign could be read from Black Creek Boulevard. The subject sign was located within 660 feet of the right-of-way of State Road 20. It did not qualify as an on-premise sign because the Outpost RV Park was located two miles away. Respondent never received a permit application from Petitioner for the 8' X 8' sign. There was no material difference in the location of Petitioner's previously removed 4' X 8' sign and the new 8' X 8' sign. On May 13, 1996 Respondent issued Notice of Violation No. 10BME1996110 to Petitioner for the west facing of the 8' X 8' sign. Respondent also issued Notice of Violation No. 10BME1996111 to Petitioner for the east facing of the same sign. Each Notice of Violation contained a location description for a sign which was the same as the location description contained in Petitioner's previously denied sign permit application. The basis for both violations was that neither sign had the permit required by Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes. The notices directed Petitioner to remove the sign structure within thirty (30) days. Respondent subsequently removed the 8' X 8' sign because Petitioner failed to do so within the prescribed time. Respondent's right-of-way on the north and south side of State Road 20 is the area that Respondent maintains which is approximately fifty (50) feet. Respondent's right-of-way map showing the maintained area is available to the public at Respondent's Right-Of-Way Office. In the past, Petitioner erected other signs along U. S. Highway 331 without obtaining a permit. Respondent issued a permit for at least one of these signs after Petitioner filed the appropriate application. Respondent required Petitioner to remove any sign that was not eligible for a permit. Respondent's inspector issued more than ten (10) notices of violation to owners of other outdoor advertising signs in the same general vicinity as Petitioner's 8' X 8' sign on May 13, 1996. These signs have been removed. There is a Reddick Fish Camp sign located on the south side of State Road 20 and west of the intersection of State Road 20 and County Road 3280. That sign is located six miles from the sign at issue here. Another sign has been nailed to a tree three-quarters of a mile west of the subject sign. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether these signs are illegal because they do not have a permit. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent issues violations to Petitioner when it erects an off-premises sign without a permit but allows illegal signs of other property owners to exist without issuing similar notices of violation. Even if Petitioner had filed a permit application for the sign structure at issue here, it would have been ineligible for issuance of a permit because the location's land use designation was agricultural. If the property had been zoned commercial or industrial, Petitioner would have been required to have a permit because the sign did not qualify for any exceptions to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner erected a sign with two faces in violation of Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul T. Davis 4576 Highway 3280 Freeport, Florida 32439 Andrea V. Smart, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transporation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Transportation's Notice of Denied Application for an outdoor advertising permit at State Road 61 (U.S. 319), 168 feet west of Thomasville Road, Leon County, issued to Lamar of Tallahassee on May 30, 2008, should be upheld pursuant to Section 479.07, Florida Statutes,1/ or whether the sign should be permitted as a nonconforming sign as defined by Section 479.01(14), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state agency empowered to regulate outdoor advertising signs along the interstate and federal-aid primary highway systems of Florida pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Lamar is licensed to engage in the business of outdoor advertising within the state of Florida pursuant to Section 479.04, Florida Statutes. Lamar owns a V-shaped sign located on certain real property at 1940 Thomasville Road in Tallahassee. Thomasville Road is also known as State Road 61. Lamar does not own the real property, but has the right to erect and maintain its sign on the property under a lease that Lamar executed with the landowner in 1998. Lamar's sign was erected in 1998, with the approval of the City of Tallahassee. The sign is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Thomasville and Betton/Bradford Road, behind the Southern Flooring showroom. The east side of the sign face is within 660 feet of and visible to State Road 61. State Road 61 is a federal-aid highway and thus a "controlled road" subject to the jurisdiction of the Department pursuant to Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the east side of the sign requires a permit from the Department. The west side is visible only to Bradford Road and does not require a permit from the Department. On February 10, 2008, Lisa Adams, an outdoor advertising inspector conducting an annual inventory on behalf of the Department, identified the subject sign as an unpermitted sign that is visible from State Road 61. Ms. Adams completed a Department compliance checklist stating that the sign was possibly illegal because it lacked a Department permit and the east side of the sign was visible from State Road 61. On April 22, 2008, the Department issued a notice of violation stating that the sign was illegal and must be removed within 30 days of the date of the notice, pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes. Lamar did not file a request for hearing in response to the notice of violation, and does not contest the notice of violation in this proceeding. On May 16, 2008, Lamar filed an Application for Outdoor Advertising Permit for the sign. The Department reviewed the application and issued a Notice of Denied Application on May 30, 2008. The application was denied because the sign site does not meet the spacing requirements of Section 479.07(9)(a)2., Florida Statutes, in that it is closer than 1,000 feet from another permitted sign owned by Lamar. The other permitted sign was built in 1979. The 1,000 foot spacing requirement has been in the statute at all times since the 1998 construction of the sign at issue in this proceeding, meaning that it could never have met the spacing requirement of Section 479.07(9)(a)2., Florida Statutes. Myron Laborde was Lamar Advertising Southeast's regional manager in 1998 when the sign was built. His area of authority included Tallahassee. Mr. Laborde testified that in 1998 the view of the sign from State Road 61 was obstructed by several palm trees, some scrub oaks, and a very tall tallow tree. Some of these trees were removed when Southern Flooring took over and remodeled the old Helms Exterminators building at 1940 Thomasville Road about four years ago. Mr. Laborde testified that the sign is now visible from State Road 61 due to the removal of the trees, but only "if you . . .turn your head 90 degrees" while driving north on State Road 61. Loyd Childree has been the vice-president and general manager of Lamar of Tallahassee since 2003. Mr. Childree testified that the renovations to the Helms Exterminators building began some time after March 2005, and that the building's size was nearly doubled to accommodate the Southern Flooring showroom. Mr. Childree testified that a lot of trees were removed during the renovation, including palm trees and a "canopy-type tree" about 25 to 30 feet tall with a full crown similar to that of an oak. Mr. Childree testified that the sign is now visible from State Road 61 due to the removal of the trees. Mr. Childree further stated that Lamar markets the sign to advertisers based on the traffic counts from Bradford Road, not those from State Road 61. Ms. Adams, the inspector who identified the possible illegality of the sign, has worked for the Department's contractor, TBE Group, since August 2004. Her job is to conduct an inventory of permitted signs on controlled roads such as State Road 61 and determine which unpermitted signs are visible from the roadway. Ms. Adams inventoried State Road 61 in 2005, 2006 and 2007 without identifying Lamar's sign as an unpermitted sign visible from the roadway. Ms. Adams testified that her predecessor in the position inventoried State Road 61 every year since Lamar's sign was erected and never identified the sign as one visible from State Road 61. Ms. Adams testified that she might have seen the sign in a previous year but did not identify it as illegal because she believed it had "on-premise" advertising, i.e., it advertised Southern Flooring. With certain restrictions, a sign erected on the premises of a business establishment that bears advertising for that establishment is exempt pursuant to Section 479.16(1), Florida Statutes. Ms. Adams frankly conceded that she was speculating and that her memory was unclear as to whether she had seen and noted this sign in past years. In any event, Lamar's log of advertisers showed that Southern Flooring never advertised on the sign. Lynn Holschuh is the Department's state outdoor advertising administrator, and had held this position since 1992. Ms. Holschuh testified that State Road 61 has been inventoried by an outdoor advertising inspector every year since Lamar's sign was erected in 1998. None of the inspectors noted the visibility or possible illegality of the sign until Ms. Adams noted the sign on February 12, 2008. Ms. Holschuh lives in Tallahassee and has driven on State Road 61 hundreds of times over the years. In her deposition, she testified that she believed the sign was not visible when it was built, and only became visible from State Road 61 when a third party removed the obstructing trees. The testimony of Mr. Laborde, Mr. Childree, and Ms. Holschuh was credible and uncontroverted as to the history of the sign. It is found that the sign was not visible from State Road 61 when it was erected in 1998, but that it became visible from State Road 61 when trees were removed by the landowner during renovations to the old Helms Exterminators building at some point after March 2005. Lamar's sign, now visible from State Road 61, is subject to the Department's jurisdiction pursuant to Section 479.01, Florida Statutes, because State Road 61, as a federal- aid primary highway, is a "controlled road" under the statute. A sign visible from a controlled road must carry a Department permit. Lamar contends that the facts of this case establish that its sign meets the definition of a "nonconforming sign" set forth in Section 479.01(14), Florida Statutes: "Nonconforming sign" means a sign which was lawfully erected but which does not comply with the land use, setback, size, spacing, and lighting provisions of state or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance passed at a later date or a sign which was lawfully erected but which later fails to comply with state or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance due to changed conditions. Lamar's sign was not visible from State Road 61 in 1998 and therefore was "lawfully erected" in terms of the Department's licensing requirements. Lamar contends that the removal of trees by a third party constituted "changed conditions" that rendered the sign out of compliance with state law, and that the sign is therefore a nonconforming sign under Section 479.01(14), Florida Statutes. The Legislature has provided no definition of the term "changed conditions," and the Department has no rule to provide interpretive guidance to the words of the statute. On September 17, 2008, Lamar filed a motion for leave to amend its petition for hearing in this case to challenge the Department's alleged interpretation of the phrase "due to changed conditions" as an unadopted rule. In particular, Lamar alleged that the Department was applying an unadopted rule limiting "changed conditions" to those initiated by a government agency. On September 19, 2008, the Department filed an unopposed motion to remand the case to the agency. The motion was granted on September 22, 2008. In the Florida Administrative Weekly dated November 26, 2008 (vol. 34, no. 48, p. 6228), the Department published a Notice of Development of Proposed Rule, with the following preliminary text of an amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.006: 14-10.006 Additional Permitting Criteria. Each application for an outdoor advertising sign permit shall meet the requirements of Sections 479.07(9) and 479.11, F.S. In addition, an application must comply with the requirements of the agreement between the state and the United States Department of Transportation referenced in Section 479.02(1), F.S., which have not been duplicated in Sections 479.07(9) and 479.11, F.S., or superseded by stricter provisions in those statutes. The requirements are: through (8) No change. (9) The term "changed conditions" referenced in Section 479.01(14), F.S., defining nonconforming signs, means only the actions of a governmental entity, as defined by Section 11.45, F.S., which includes for example: Rezoning of a commercial area, reclassifying a secondary highway as a primary highway, or altering a highway's configuration causing a preexisting sign to become subject to the Department's jurisdiction. (Emphasis added) Ms. Holschuh testified that this draft rule language was written in direct response to Lamar's allegation that the Department's denial of its application was based on an unadopted rule. On December 16, 2008, the Department held a workshop on the draft rule. At the workshop, the Florida Outdoor Advertising Association ("FOAA") submitted the following suggested draft language for subsection (9) of Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.006: (9) The term "changed conditions" referenced in Section 479.01(14), F.S., defining nonconforming signs, means, and shall include, any of the following: An action taken by a governmental entity, as defined by Section 11.45, F.S., such as the rezoning of a parcel of property fro commercial to noncommercial, reclassifying a secondary highway to a primary highway, altering a highway's configuration, or the taking of any other action within the powers of such governmental entity which thereby causes a preexisting sign to become subject to the Department's jurisdiction; The action of a third party, who is not the owner of a preexisting sign, relating to modifications to the topography, vegetation, buildings or other physical characteristics of the property upon which the sign is located, or the property surrounding the sign, which thereby causes a preexisting sign to become subject to the Department's jurisdiction. an act of God which thereby causes a preexisting sign to become subject to the Department's jurisdiction. The Department rejected the FOAA's proposed language, and ultimately abandoned the effort to adopt a rule defining the term "changed conditions." On September 18, 2009, the Department filed a motion with DOAH to reopen this case and proceed to a fact-finding hearing regarding its proposed rejection of Lamar's application. In her deposition, Ms. Holschuh testified that the rulemaking effort was abandoned because the language proposed by the FOAA made it clear that it would be "nearly impossible" to arrive at a definition that would cover "every situation that might arise for when an existing sign might suddenly become visible." Ms. Holschuh testified in deposition that it is now the Department's policy to review these matters on a case-by- case basis. However, she also testified that the Department, as a matter of "policy," continues to limit its consideration of "changed conditions" to actions taken by a governmental entity. The Department bases this limitation on the examples provided by 23 C.F.R. § 750.707(b), defining "nonconforming signs" for purposes of the Federal Highway Administration: A nonconforming sign is a sign which was lawfully erected but does not comply with the provisions of State law or State regulations passed at a later date or later fails to comply with State law or State regulations due to changed conditions. Changed conditions include, for example, signs lawfully in existence in commercial areas which at a later date become noncommercial, or signs lawfully erected on a secondary highway later classified as a primary highway. Ms. Holschuh stated that the Department's policy was applied to Lamar in the instant case, and would continue to be applied in the future unless some "extraordinary circumstance" in a specific case led the Department to revisit the policy. At the final hearing, Ms. Holschuh backed away somewhat from her flat statement that the Department's "policy" was to limit consideration of changed conditions to those caused by government action. She stated that FOAA's proposed rule language caused the Department to reconsider its position that governmental action should be the exclusive reason for granting a permit for "changed conditions," and testified that the Department will consider other circumstances in its case-by-case review of permit applications. Ms. Holschuh testified that, under the facts presented in this case, the Department would deny the permit because there is DOAH case law on point for the proposition that tree removal does not constitute "changed conditions," and because broadening the definition of "changed conditions" to include the situation presented by this case would open up the process to abuse. Ms. Holschuh testified, at more than one point in the proceeding, that the Department would have very likely granted the permit had the trees been removed by the Department rather than the private landowner. She gave no indication that Section 479.105(1)(e), Florida Statutes, or any other statute would prevent the Department from granting the permit for Lamar's nonconforming sign, should the Department find that the sign fell into nonconformity due to "changed conditions." The DOAH case law cited by Ms. Holschuh is Lamar of Tallahassee v. Department of Transportation, Case Nos. 08-0660 and 08-0661 (DOAH September 15, 2008), discussed more fully in the Conclusions of Law below. Ms. Holschuh testified that Lamar's sign is not located in a Department right-of-way and is not a hazard to the public in its current location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation denying the application of Lamar of Tallahassee for a state sign permit for a location described as State Road 61 (U.S. 319), 168 feet west of Thomasville Road, in Leon County, Florida (Application Number 57155). DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 7th day of June, 2010.
