Findings Of Fact In 1968, the Respondent constructed a V-type outdoor advertising structure adjacent to 1-95, 1.66 miles north of SR 50 in Brevard County, Florida. This sign was permitted by the Department as a non- conforming sign in 1971 when the Department issued permit number 4410-10. When permit number 4410-10 was issued for this sign, the copy on the sign advertised Texaco. The sign has carried a Texaco advertisement continuously since 1971. In September of 1985, as a result of Hurricane Elena, the subject sign sustained wind damage which required repairs to be made to the sign. The wind damage caused by Hurricane Elena required the Respondent to expend the sum of $308.25 to repair the subject sign. This sum covered the cost of three replacement poles, nine bags of Sackcrete cement, and six replacement boards. The total depreciated value of the structural materials in the subject sign immediately prior to the wind damage inflicted by Hurricane Elena was $1,055.00. The sign which is the subject of this proceeding now stands at the location in question (adjacent to I-95, 1.66 miles north SR 50 in Brevard County). It displays the same sign permit that was issued by the Department in 1971 for this location. With the exception of the other face of the V-type structure, the nearest sign to the subject structure is 1,100 feet away.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Violation Notice issued on December 16, 1985, seeking removal of the Respondent's sign adjacent to I-95, 1.66 miles north of SR 50 in Brevard County, Florida, be DISMISSED; and it is further RECOMMENDED that the Notice of Intent to Revoke sign permit number 4410-10 be DISMISSED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 16th day of October, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 86-0371T 86-0452T Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as the sign retains its status as nonconforming sign. Second sentence is not a finding of fact. Ruling on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: 1.- 8. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 A. J Spalla, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Gary Dotson, d/b/a Castaway Point, holds outdoor advertising sign permit number 6637-2 authorizing a sign on U.S. 1, 1.3 miles north of SR 516, facing west, in Brevard County, Florida. This location is inside the road right-of-way of the City of Palm Bay. At the time when the subject sign Permit was issued by the Department, the City of Palm Bay had given permission to erect a sign at this location. This permission was for a period beginning on February 15, 1979, and expiring in April of 1980. A sign had been erected at the site where the permit had been issued. This sign was erected by a previous owner, and when the Respondent bought Castaway Point the purchase included the sign. The sign which was authorized by the subject permit was removed by the City of Palm Bay after the City's permission for continued maintenance of this sign had expired. There is presently no authority from the City of Palm Bay for the Respondent to have a sign at the permitted site.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that permit number 6637-2 held by Gary Dotson, d/b/a Castaway Point, for a sign on US. 1, 1.3 miles north of SR 516, facing west, in Brevard County, Florida, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. Gary Dotson 3101 Bay Boulevard, N.E. Palm Bay, Florida 32905 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding is whether a bill board (sign) bearing permit number BB058 (Tag BB058) was illegally modified as envisioned in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2), by having more than 50 percent of its materials replaced within a 24-month period and thus whether the permit for the billboard should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner (Salter) is the owner and operator of an outdoor advertising sign structure, located on State Road 89 in Santa Rosa County, Florida. The sign is located approximately at .01 miles north of Metz Road. It is undisputed that the sign is a "non-conforming" sign and it is permitted with Tag Number BB058. Hurricane Dennis struck Santa Rosa County on July 10, 2005. It damaged the sign. Prior to the storm the structural components of the sign consisted of two poles in the ground, or ground supports, two vertical supports (2 x 6) four braces, and two horizontal stringers. Salter's initial damage assessment, done by Mr. David McCurdy, was that one pole had broken and that therefore only one pole or ground support needed to be replaced. It was later discovered that the second ground support pole needed to be replaced. The Petitioner ordered one new pole for a cost of $59.00 dollars. That pole was then cut into two pieces to replace both ground support poles for the sign. All other existing parts of the sign were re-used. No new lumber or other materials were purchased for repair of the sign. Exhibit R-9 in evidence shows that the existing plywood vertical supports (wooden sign board) clearly appears to be an original portion of the sign and not new material. The three 2 x 6 horizontal stringers also clearly are re-used lumber from the original sign. One of them has a yellow tag on the end, commonly attached to pressure treated lumber when it comes from the lumber yard. The picture of the original, damaged sign depicted in R-7 also has the yellow tag attached on the end of the 2 x 6 stringer. That fact, together with the weathered appearance of that 2 x 6 stringer, as well as the other two stringers, shows that they are original material from the original sign. The two vertical 2 x 6's appear to be original material as well. Respondent's Exhibit 9 is a photograph depicting the back of the repaired sign. The vertical 2 x 6 support on the left side of the sign, as depicted in photograph R-9, appears brighter or newer looking than the other 2 x 6 structural members. However, it has a visible edge which appears to show weathering. There are also several old nail holes in the board, as well as a bent nail protruding from the rear of the board between it and the plywood vertical support or face of the sign. It thus appears to be a used structural member as well. Additionally, the horizontal stringer and plywood board at the bottom of the sign, on which the name Salter is attached, is clearly a used portion of the original sign and not new material. On balance it appears quite clearly that the only new structural members of the repaired sign are the two new poles which were cut from the original pole purchased for $59.00 dollars. Thus, the Petitioner has established by preponderant, persuasive evidence, including the depicition of the photographs in evidence, that the sign was repaired with substantially less than 50 percent new materials. In essence, it is now a sign composed of the original materials simply being hung on two new poles. Moreover, for purposes of the rule cited below, concerning the definition of a "destroyed" sign, 50 percent of the ground support poles were destroyed (i.e. broken). Thus it could be deemed a destroyed sign. In that case, although the Department is not asserting revocation based upon the value of the materials used in the repair of the sign, the "Florida Construction Order" in evidence, together with the testimony of Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Crawley, establishes persuasively that less than 50 percent of the value of the materials in the sign before the storm damaged it, were replaced in the repair work or, (37 percent). Thus by either measure of the manner of repair, the preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that the sign was properly repaired with less than 50 percent by quantity of new structural materials added to the sign and with less than 50 percent by value of new materials used in the sign repair, when compared to the value of the structural materials and members in the sign immediately prior to the storm damage. In Summary, the Salter General Manager, David McCurdy, ordered one pole to repair the sign. He ordered no vertical supports, braces, or stringers for the repair effort. He oversaw the repairs himself and was at the site while the repairs were being made. The single pole was cut into two pieces so that two ground support poles were replaced. The materials shown lying on the ground in Exhibits R-6 and R-7, were otherwise re-assembled and re-hung on the new poles. Salter assessed the damage at 37 percent by the value measurement. The value of the structural materials in the sign prior to the storm damage was $157.00 dollars. The cost to repair the sign's structure immediately after the hurricane was $59.00, for purchase of the pole. Thus the replacement materials to effect the repair constituted 37 percent of the value of the materials prior to the damage and the only new material incorporated into the repair sign structure was the single, $59.00 pole cut into two pieces. Therefore, it has not been proven by preponderant evidence that the sign was illegally repaired.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witness, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation finding that permit number BB058 for the subject sign structure should remain in effect. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 19th day of January, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura Joyner Nye, Esquire Lindsay, Andrews, and Leonard, P.A. Post Office Box 586 Milton, Florida 32572 J. Ann Cowles, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0485 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Denver Stutler, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue in these causes is whether denial of Petitioners' outdoor advertising sign site permit applications by Respondent were correctly determined under Subsection 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (2003), on the basis that the sign sites were unzoned commercial/industrial areas; and on the basis that within attending factual circumstances, the sign site did not qualify as unzoned commercial/industrial areas as defined in Subsection 479.01(23), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying; documentary materials received in evidence; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003); and the entire record of this proceeding, the following relevant and material findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Tropical Landholdings, a Florida Corporation, was created in 1998 and purchased approximately 700 to 800 acres of land comprised of residential multi-family and commercial properties along Interstate 75 (I-75) in Punta Gorda, Florida. On September 8, 2003, Petitioner, Crown Advertising, Inc., of Belleview, Florida, submitted three outdoor advertising sign site permit applications to the Department for review. On September 23, 2003, the Department denied the three outdoor advertising sign site permit applications for the following reasons: (1) the sign sites were not permitted under the local land use designation of site (§ 479.111(2), Fla. Stat. (2003)); and (2) the sign sites did not qualify as unzoned commercial/industrial area. § 479.01, Fla. Stat. (2003). The sign site permit application forms used by Petitioners in these causes were composed and authorized by the Department. The form required the applicant to obtain and provide information regarding the proposed sign site, what is proposed to be constructed on the site, and where the proposed construction is to occur. The sign site permit applications also required the applicant to secure information from the appropriate local zoning official of the future land use designation and the current zoning of the proposed sites enacted by the local government's Comprehensive Plan and land use development regulations. This form required information from the local government as to whether the applicant is or is not in compliance with all adopted local ordinances. Permission to erect an outdoor sign structure on the identified sign site is subject to approval by the City. Petitioners complied with the requested information. The local government, the City of North Port, approved the three sign site permit applications in question and granted Petitioners permission to erect three outdoor billboard signs. This local grant of approval was then subjected to concurring approval by the Department. After receiving the sign site permits that were approved by the City, the Department engaged the services of a consultant to conduct on-site review and identification of: (1) the local government's designation for each proposed sign site; (2) the permitted uses of each proposed sign site (local drainage facilities, pipeline corridors, underground communication cables, electric transmission lines, and outdoor advertising signs); and (3) a review of adjacent and surrounding parcels. The consultant reported to the Department the factual circumstances attendant the three locally approved sign sites. It should be noted that the consultant did not render an opinion regarding the Department's approval or denial of the sign site permit applications. The sign sites in question were zoned under the local "land use designation" of the City of North Port's Ordinance 02-46, Section 53.146 (Ordinance 02-46), as a "utility industrial corridor." The zoned land was composed of strips of land measuring 25 to 70 feet in width on the west side and 160 to 170 feet in width on the east side. The "permitted governmental uses" of a parcel zoned as a "utility industrial corridor," included such uses as underground communication cables, electric transmission lines, and outdoor advertising signs. Ordinance 02-46, under the title "Prohibited Uses and Structures," specifically prohibits "all commercial and industrial uses." Based upon a review of all information provided by Petitioners, the local government, and its consultant, the Department first determined the three sign sites on which the subject signs were to be erected and located, prohibited commercial or industrial uses. The Department then determined, based upon an analysis of the materials provided by its consultant and the City of North Port, the three sign sites in question had not been zoned for commercial or industrial uses as a part of the local government's comprehensive zoning plan. Based upon (1) the prohibition of commercial or industrial uses and (2) no commercial or industrial zoning of the sign sites, the Department concluded these three sign sites were zoned "primarily to permit outdoor advertising," a prohibited function. The denials were required. Under the local land use designation of Ordinance 02-46, the City of North Port's permitted uses included local drainage facilities and a pipeline corridor. Under governmental uses designation of Ordinance 02-46, the City of North Port's permitted uses included underground communication cables, electric transmission lines, and outdoor advertising. However, Ordinance 02-46 specifically prohibits all commercial and industrial uses under the governmental uses designation. When questioned by Petitioners, Ms. Holschuh testified "that the Department's intent was to allow [sign] permits whenever possible and never prohibit the installation of billboards." From this specific statement of testimony, Petitioners argued that "implementing the intent the Department must look beyond the labels of the zoning and look at the actual primary uses allowed under those designations." (Emphasis added.) Ms. Holschuh disagreed with Petitioners' characterization of the Department's procedures and convincingly maintained that the Department based its denials on "sign site zoning" and factors considered for determining an "unzoned commercial/industrial area" as defined by statute. Continuing with its argument, Petitioners conclude "[T]he department . . . appears to be in conflict with Judge Barbara Staros' decision of February 16, 2004, in a rule challenge proceeding, where she analyzed the Sign Permit procedure under Section 479.07, Florida Statutes." In her Final Order, Administrative Law Judge Barbara Staros made a Finding of Fact in paragraph 30, stating: Once the local government zoning official certifies that the proposed sign identified in the application is in compliance with the comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, the Department does not go behind that certification to look factually at whether the zoning action was consistent with the comprehensive plan. Page 13. The procedures followed by the Department in this proceeding complied with Judge Staros Finding of Fact in paragraph 31, where she wrote: The Department uses the application and the information contained therein to determine whether a proposed sign location falls within the definition of a "commercial or industrial zone." If it does, [fall within] then the Department determines whether those designations were adopted as part of the local government's comprehensive planning efforts or were "primarily" adopted to permit outdoor advertising signs on that location. Page 30. Based upon it's receipt, review, and analysis of the specific facts provided by all parties of interest, the Department determined the sites where the signs were to be erected prohibited commercial or industrial use. The Department factually determined that no local zoning identified the sites as commercial or industrial. The Department concluded correctly and in accord with Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0052 that these three sign sites were zoned by the City of North Port, the local governmental entity, "primarily to permit outdoor advertising" contrary to sign site permit procedures under Section 479.07, Florida Statutes (2003). Based upon the evidence of record and considering the size of the sign site, the local government's zoning of the site, designated uses of the site, and prohibited uses on the site, denial of the sign applications was correctly determined pursuant to Subsection 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0052. Based on the testimonies of Ms. Holschuh and James Duff, who testified regarding his ownership, property taxes paid, and the investors' inability to use the property in question to their economic advantage, Petitioners failed to carry the burden of producing a preponderance of credible evidence to establish that the Department incorrectly and/or wrongfully denied Petitioners' applications for three sign site permits pursuant to Subsection 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0052.
Findings Of Fact Larry Brummitt owned a sign on U.S. 90 in Greenville, Florida advertising Country Corner for which he held a permit for seven or eight years. U.S. 90 is a federal-aid primary highway. Mr. Brummitt desired to rebuild and relocate this sign a short distance from its authorized location and, to insure he did things properly, sought advice both from the advertising sign inspectors at Lake City and from the State Administrator of the Outdoor Advertising Section in Tallahassee. At both places he was told that be could not get an application for a new sign approved until his existing sign was removed because the new sign would violate the spacing requirements of Rule 14D-10.06(b)3, Florida Administrative Code while the existing sign was up; that an application would not be accepted while the former sign was standing; that the policy of the Department, when conflicting interests desired to erect signs where only one could be erected, was the person whose application was first received would be approved. The Department's long-standing policy, which was memorialized in a memorandum to all District Outdoor Advertising Sign Administrators in 1978, is that where conflicting applications for signs are received, the first submitted will be approved. Relying upon this information, Petitioner prepared his application, removed the old sign, and at 10:00 a.m. on 2 June 1980 presented his application to Respondent for a permit to erect his replacement sign. On 24 March 1980 American Sign and Indicator Company first approached Respondent's sign inspector to inquire about erecting a time and temperature sign for the Bank of Greenville. They were told that a permit for such a sign could not be issued because it would be within 500 feet of the Country Corner sign and would violate the spacing requirements unless Brummit's sign was first moved. At 1400 hours on 2 June 1980 American Sign and Indicator Company presented an application at the Lake City Headquarters of Respondent for a permit to erect a time and temperature sign at approximately the same location earlier requested by Brummitt. In his letter of 11 June 1980 the District Administrator, Outdoor Advertising, in Lake City advised Mr. Brummitt that his application was being disapproved and of his right to petition for an administrative hearing within 14 days or the denial would become final. As reasons for denying the application the letter stated: The application indicates the proposed location would be within 500 feet if a proposed time and temperature display to be erected by the Bank of Greenville in the County of Madison. The Bank of Greenville has been dealing in good faith with the Department to erect this display since January 5th, 1980. After obtaining the necessary criteria and additional expenses accrued, the Department feels the bank should be allowed to erect the display, because we feel they were the first applicant. When questioned by the Hearing Officer how Respondent "reasoned" the bank's application was received prior to Petitioner's application, the District Sign Inspector acknowledged that he had discussed these applications with the Chief Right-of-Way Agent in District 2, Mr. Bielling, under whose supervision the Outdoor Advertising Section comes, that Mr. Bielling is his boss and tells him what to do (Tr. p. 24-25) and that as far as the sign inspector is concerned, Mr. Bielling has the prerogative to change DOT policy.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent should revoke Petitioner's sign permits and retrieve Petitioner's permit tags because Petitioner violated Sections 479.07(5) and 479.08, Florida Statutes, 1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 10.004(7), 2/ by allegedly removing its sign from its property and by failing to display the permit tag prior to removing the sign.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation formed in 1983 by Mr. Rodney Forton. Mr. Forton is the president and sole shareholder of Petitioner. Sometime in 1987, Petitioner entered into a management agreement with Cotee River Outdoor Advertising Company ("Cotee River"). The management agreement provided that Cotee River would construct a sign on property owned by Petitioner on U.S. highway 19 in New Port Richey, Florida (the "Cotee River sign"). Cotee River agreed to pay Petitioner a portion of the advertising revenues from the sign. The Cotee River Permit On May 26, 1987, Cotee River applied for an outdoor advertising sign permit from Respondent. The application described the Cotee River sign as a rectangular wood sign measuring 10 feet by 20 feet, with its lowest point approximately 15 feet above ground level and its highest point approximately 25 feet above the crown of the road. Respondent approved the application and mailed the approval to Cotee River on May 29, 1987. On June 3, 1987, Respondent located the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory at, Section 595, ". . . N/B 5.06 in F/N." The number "5.06" indicates that the sign is located at milepost 5.06 on U.S. 19. 3/ Mileposts describe the location of each sign by the distance of the sign from a fixed point. Each of Respondent's outdoor advertising inspectors measures the milepost for each sign in his or her territory using a distance measuring instrument. Respondent then enters the milepost for each sign in Respondent's sign inventory. The milepost of 5.06 that Respondent assigned to the Cotee River permit was incorrect. In May 1987, Cotee River constructed a sign on Petitioner's property pursuant to the permit granted by Respondent. The sign was a metal monopole sign rather than the wood sign described in the application. The Cotee River sign was not constructed at milepost 5.060. Cotee River rented the sign to outdoor advertisers. However, Cotee River failed to pay any portion of the advertising revenue to Petitioner, and the parties resolved the matter by mutual agreement. Petitioner and Cotee River agreed that Cotee River would release its right to manage the Cotee River sign in consideration for the right to manage a sign located on other property owned by Petitioner. The agreement provided that Petitioner would pay Cotee River a prescribed sum in exchange for the performance of specific duties by Cotee River. Cotee River failed to perform the duties specified in the agreement. Petitioner refused to pay the balance of payments. Petitioner sued Cotee River. Cotee River went into bankruptcy and was dissolved. Petitioner's Permit On July 14, 1992, Petitioner applied for an outdoor advertising sign permit for the Cotee River sign. The application described the sign as an existing rectangular, metal, monopole "sign in place," measuring approximately 10 feet by 20 feet. The application stated that the sign was first erected in May 1987. Respondent approved the application from Petitioner and mailed the approval to Petitioner on October 12, 1992. Respondent again incorrectly listed the location of the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory as, Section 595, ". . . N/B 5.060 in F/N." Respondent issued permit tag number BG341-25 to Petitioner. Although Petitioner used the Cotee River sign to generate advertising revenue, Petitioner never displayed any tag numbers on the sign. The tag numbers remained in Petitioner's files until sometime in 1995. Dr. Goluba's Permit At about the same time that Cotee River went out of business in 1992, Robert L. Goluba, D.D.S., owned property immediately adjacent to Petitioner's property. Prior to March 1993, an unidentified representative of Respondent contacted Dr. Goluba. The representative told Dr. Goluba that there were two signs on Dr. Goluba's property that were going to be taken down if the sign permits were not renewed. The representative mistakenly identified one of the two signs as the Cotee River sign. The representative went on to explain that Respondent could avoid the expense of taking down the two signs if Dr. Goluba obtained permits for the signs. Dr. Goluba wanted the advertising revenues and agreed to obtain the necessary permits. On March 2, 1993, Dr. Goluba applied for a sign permit for the Cotee River sign he mistakenly believed to be located on his property. The application described the sign as an "existing" rectangular, metal, monopole sign measuring approximately 10 feet by 24 feet, with its lowest point approximately 18 feet above ground level and its highest point approximately 30 feet above the crown of the road. The application stated that the sign was first erected in May 1987. Respondent approved the application from Dr. Goluba and mailed the approval to him on March 8, 1993. Respondent listed the location of the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory as, Section 595, ". . . N/M.P. 4.870 in F/N." Respondent incorrectly listed Dr. Goluba's permit in the sign inventory at milepost 4.870. On March 24, 1993, Respondent issued permit number BG960-35 to Dr. Goluba. Although Dr. Goluba never derived advertising revenue from the Cotee River sign, he did display his permit on the sign. Dr. Goluba inadvertently failed to pay the fee required to renew the sign permit in 1994 and, therefore, failed to display current permits on the sign. On April 11, 1994, Respondent issued a Notice of Violation, Failure To Display Permit Tag. The New Outdoor Advertising Inspector In early 1995, a new outdoor advertising inspector assumed responsibility for the territory in which the Cotee River sign was located. On April 11, 1995, the inspector conducted a field inspection to verify the mileposts and signs in the territory for which he was responsible. The inspector correctly identified the milepost of the Cotee River sign as milepost 4.980. He found no sign subject to regulation by Respondent 4/ located at milepost 5.060. Milepost 5.060 and 4.980 are approximately 422 feet apart. Relevant law prohibits the location of regulated signs within 1,000 feet of each other. 5/ No exceptions to 1,000 foot prohibition applied to the Cotee River sign. The inspector concluded that Petitioner had removed the wood sign originally permitted to Cotee River in 1987 and which Respondent had incorrectly listed in its sign inventory as being located at milepost 5.060. On July 12, 1995, Respondent issued to Petitioner a Notice Of Violation -- Removed Sign. On August 22, 1995, Respondent ordered the revocation of Petitioner's tag permit because Petitioner had allegedly removed the Cotee River sign from milepost 5.060. Respondent never issued a Notice of Violation to Petitioner for failure to display his tag numbers on the Cotee River sign. Petitioner protested the revocation of its permit and refused to return the permit tags to Respondent. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. In the meantime, Dr. Goluba's accountant had inadvertently failed to pay the permit fee for the Cotee River sign. Respondent placed the Cotee River sign on Respondent's "cutdown list" for failure to pay the required fees. On June 20, 1995, Respondent had the Cotee River sign cut down and removed. Respondent sent Dr. Goluba a bill in the amount of $4,990 for the cost of cutting the sign down and removing it. Prior to the date Respondent cut down and removed the Cotee River sign, Petitioner notified the inspector verbally and with written documentation that the sign was owned by Petitioner, located on Petitioner's property, and permitted to Petitioner. The inspector found that Respondent's records did not agree with Petitioner's records. The inspector informed Petitioner that the "cutdown order" came from Tallahassee and there was nothing the inspector could do. Dr. Goluba's tags were displayed on the Cotee River sign at the time it was cut down and removed. Ms. Maria Passanisi was the broker who managed the sign for Dr. Goluba. Ms. Passanisi was at the site when the sign was cut down and removed. She protested Respondent's action so vehemently that the police officers regulating traffic at the scene had to intervene to quell the disturbance. After Respondent cut down the Cotee River sign, Petitioner drove a stick into the ground where the sign had been located and displayed the permit tags for the removed sign on the stick. The tags were displayed on the stick at the time of the hearing. The Computerized Sign Inventory Respondent uses a computer system to maintain its sign inventory. The computer system does not accept the same milepost for two or more regulated signs. When Petitioner applied for its sign permit in 1992, Respondent was required to carry the Cotee River permit in the inventory as a void permit. The computer system would not accept the same milepost for Petitioner's permit and the void Cotee River permit. In order to circumvent the computer system, Respondent's supervisor of property management arbitrarily changed the milepost number entered for the Cotee River permit from milepost 5.060 to milepost 4.970. As late as September 20, 1993, Respondent's computerized sign inventory identified the Cotee River sign as being located at three incorrect mileposts. The inventory located the same sign permitted to Cotee River, Petitioner, and Dr. Goluba, respectively, at mileposts 4.970, 5.060, and 4.870. In 1995, the new outdoor advertising inspector correctly located the Cotee River sign at milepost 4.980. However, he mistakenly assumed that milepost 5.060 was the correct milepost for Petitioner's sign and erroneously concluded that Petitioner had removed its sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not remove the permitted sign and that the permits issued to Petitioner are valid. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1997.
The Issue At issue is whether the permits Respondent holds to maintain two outdoor advertising signs should be cancelled, and whether the signs Respondent repaired and reerected following the destruction of the original signs by an Act of God (a hurricane) should be removed, as alleged in the Notices of Violation.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Transportation (Department), is a state agency charged with, inter alia, the duty and responsibility to regulate outdoor advertising signs under the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, National Advertising Company, is a corporation engaged in the business of erecting and maintaining outdoor advertising signs. Pertinent to this case, Respondent is the owner and operator of two nonconforming outdoor advertising sign structures located adjacent to the Florida Turnpike (SR 91) in Palm Beach County, Florida. The first structure is a double-faced sign permitted by the Department under Permit Numbers AZ 363 and AE 401 and located .83 miles south of mile post 85, on the west side of the turnpike. The second structure is a single-faced sign permitted by the Department under Permit Number BT 386 and located .7 miles south of mile post 85, on the west side of the turnpike. In October 1999, both the single-faced and double-faced signs were damaged by Hurricane Irene. That damage included the severance of all upright supports (wood poles) for the sign structure, as well as other damage discussed infra. Respondent repaired and reerected the signs. Here, the Department contends the nonconforming signs were "destroyed," as that term is defined by Rule 14- 10.007(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, and may not be replaced. Respondent disagrees that the signs were "destroyed" and is, therefore, of the opinion that they were properly reestablished. The rule regarding maintenance and repair of nonconforming signs With regard to the maintenance and repair of nonconforming signs, Rule 14-10.007, Florida Administrative Code, provides: The following shall apply to nonconforming signs: A nonconforming sign must remain substantially the same as it was as of the date it became nonconforming. Reasonable repair and maintenance, including change of advertising message, is permitted and is not a change which would terminate nonconforming rights . . . . * * * A nonconforming sign which is destroyed may not be reerected. "Destroyed" is defined as when more than 50% of the upright supports of a sign structure are physically damaged such that normal repair practices of the industry would call for, in the case of wooden sign structures, replacement of the broken supports and, in the case of a metal sign structure, replacement of at least 25% of the length above ground of each broken, bent or twisted support. However, in the event that such damage occurs, a sign will not be considered destroyed if the sign owner shows that the replacement materials costs to reerect the sign would not exceed 50% of the value of the structural materials in the sign, immediately prior to destruction. The following shall be applicable in determining whether the replacement materials costs to reerect the sign exceed 50% of the value of the structural materials in the sign: Structural materials shall not include the sign face, any skirt, any electrical service, electric lighting or other non- structural items. Structural materials shall include any support brackets for the face, any catwalk, and any supporting braces or members of the sign structure. The value of the structural materials in the sign immediately prior to destruction shall be based on the cost of all structural materials contained in the sign as it was configured just prior to damage, and the cost of such materials shall be based on normal market cost as if purchased new on or about the date of destruction, without regard to any labor costs or special market conditions. The materials to be included in the replacement materials costs to reerect the sign shall be all materials that would be used to return the sign to its configuration immediately prior to destruction and shall not include any material that is repaired on-site, but shall include any material obtained from a source other than the sign itself, whether used, recycled, or repaired. The repairs to the sign shall be with like materials and shall be those reasonably necessary to permanently repair the sign in a manner normally accomplished by the industry in that area. The cost of such materials shall be as described in paragraph (1)(d)2 . . . . Here, with regard to the signs at issue, the proof is uncontroverted that all the upright supports of both sign structures were so severely damaged as to require replacement. Consequently, it has been shown that the signs were "destroyed" unless Respondent can establish "that the replacement materials costs to reerect the sign . . . [did] not exceed 50% of the value of the structural materials in the sign, immediately prior to destruction." The replacement materials costs to reerect the double-faced sign The value of the "instructional materials" in the double-faced sign immediately prior to destruction, based on all structural materials contained in the sign as it was configured just prior to damage, consisted of 10 wooden poles (upright supports) at $156.98 each; 28 wooden stringers (14 stringers per face) at $8.97 each; 2 galvanized steel catwalks (one on each side of the sign) at $1,400.00 each; and various angle steel supports for the catwalks, the value of which was not established of record. So configured, the value of the structural materials in the double-faced sign prior to destruction, excluding the value of the angle steel supports, totaled $4,620.96. The materials cost to reerect the sign (by returning the sign to its configuration immediately prior to destruction) consisted of 10 wooden poles at $156.98 each and 28 wooden stringers at $8.97 each, a total cost of $1,820.96. Excluded from the materials cost to reerect the sign was the value of the catwalks and angle steel supports which were recycled from the sign itself and, as necessary, repaired on-site. Comparing the value of the structural materials of the double-faced sign immediately prior to destruction (at least $4,620.96), with the replacement materials costs to reerect the sign, but excluding materials recycled on-site ($1,820.96), demonstrates that the replacement materials costs to reerect the sign did not exceed 50 percent of the structural materials in the sign, immediately prior to destruction. Consequently, under the provisions of Rule 14-10.007(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, the double-faced sign is not considered destroyed, and was properly reerected. The replacement materials costs to reerect the single-faced sign The value of the "structural materials" in the single- faced sign immediately prior to destruction, based on all structural materials contained in the sign as it was configured just prior to damage, consisted of 10 wooden poles at $156.98 each; 14 wooden stringers at $8.97 each; 1 galvanized steel catwalk at a minimum value of $700.00; 5/ and various angle steel supports for the catwalk, the value of which was not established of record. So configured, the value of the structural materials in the single-faced sign prior to destruction, excluding the value of the angle steel supports and valuing the catwalk at $700.00, was $2,395.38. The materials costs to reerect the sign (by returning the sign to its configuration immediately prior to destruction) consisted of 10 wooden poles at $156.98 each, 14 wooden stringers at $8.97 each; and 1 galvanized catwalk at a minimum value of $700.00, a total cost of $2,395.38 (provided the value of the catwalk, as offered by Respondent, is accepted). Excluded from the materials costs to reerect the sign was the value of the angle steel supports which were recycled on-site. Comparing the value of the structural materials of the single-faced sign immediately prior to destruction ($2,395.38), with the replacement materials costs to reerect the sign, but excluding materials recycled on-site ($2,395.38), demonstrates that the replacement materials costs to reerect the sign exceeded 50 percent of the structural materials in the sign, immediately prior to destruction. Consequently, under the provisions of Rule 14-10.007(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, the single-faced sign was destroyed, and was could not properly be reerected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered which adopts the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; which dismisses the notices of violation with regard to the double- faced sign (DOT Case Nos. 99-0263 and 99-0293, DOAH Case Nos. 99-4905T and 00-0134T); and which sustains the notices of violation with regard to the single-faced sign (DOT Case Nos. 99-0264 and 00-0026, DOAH Case Nos. 99-4906T and 00-0826T), cancels the single-faced sign permit, and orders the removal of the reerected single-faced sign. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The despot Building 1230 Appalachia Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNOCO 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 2000.
The Issue The issues in this case are: whether the Department of Transportation ("Department") properly issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit for Violation to Carter Outdoor Advertising a/k/a Carter Pritchett Advertising ("Carter") for the outdoor advertising sign permitted with tag numbers BV314/315 and whether the Department properly denied CBS Outdoor, Inc.'s ("CBS") application for outdoor advertising sign permit based on a spacing conflict with the outdoor advertising sign permitted with tag numbers BV314/315.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The City of Miami is a competitive market for billboards. On December 14, 1998, the Department issued outdoor advertising permits to Carter for the erection of a double-faced sign and assigned permit tag numbers BV314/315 to 3825 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida, 0.980 miles east of I-95 at milepost 0.906 (the "Tabernacle Sign"). Carter leased the property for the Tabernacle Sign from the Tabernacle God in Christ, Inc. The Tabernacle Sign was initially permitted by the Department as a conforming sign. On or about February 6, 2002, the Tabernacle Sign was changed to nonconforming status pursuant to a settlement between Carter and the Department. On August 18, 2003, Carter entered into a settlement agreement with the City of Miami, which limited/restricted the number of signs Carter can maintain in Miami to 20. The settlement agreement also protects the Tabernacle Sign as one on Carter's list of billboards protected by the City until 2028. In late 2007, the Tabernacle God in Christ, Inc. decided to sell the property Carter leased for the Tabernacle Sign, and the church listed the location for sale. The church would not allow Carter to purchase an easement to maintain the Tabernacle Sign at the location. Around August 2008, Carter began looking for a new location for the Tabernacle Sign. Carter first leased a vacant lot as a "new location" for the billboard. On April 9, 2008, the City of Miami issued a building permit to Carter for a billboard at the new location. After Carter obtained the permits for the new location and was ready to construct the billboard, Carter developed concerns regarding Florida Power and Light Company setbacks and decided to identify an alternative location for the billboard sign. During Carter's search for an alternative location, Carter's goal was to have a conforming billboard. Carter identified an alternate location at a site directly to the west of the new location at 221 Northwest 38th Street, Miami, Florida ("new Carter site"), which is not within 100 feet of the Tabernacle church site. Carter performed the soil boring tests to design the foundation for the billboard at the new Carter site. On September 30, 2008, Carter obtained a building permit from the City of Miami for a billboard at 221 Northwest 38th Street. The City of Miami transferred the permit fees previously paid in connection with the new location to the new Carter site. Subsequently, Carter purchased the property at the new Carter site. Carter also performed a substantial amount of preparatory work, including engineering work and the preparation of a survey to place a conforming sign at the new Carter site. On October 10, 2008, Carter closed on its land purchase for the new Carter site. On October 21, 2008, Scott Carter Signs, Inc. ("Carter Signs")1/ installed the concrete footer for Carter at the new Carter site in preparation to install the sign. On December 2, 2008, Carter Signs took down the Tabernacle Sign from the permitted location at 3825 NW 2nd Avenue and moved it to Fort Myers, Florida. The company's work order provided the following instructions for the move: "Take down existing sign structure DISASSEMBLED and LOAD ONTO SEMI'S TRANSPORT TO FT. MYERS UNLOAD IN YARD FOR ALTERATIONS."2/ As part of the move, the Tabernacle Sign was dismantled. The upper structure, which holds both sign faces, as well as every beam, pole, and stringer was removed from the Tabernacle church site and transported to Fort Myers. When Carter Signs removed the Tabernacle Sign, the permitted tags BV315/314 were also removed from the permitted location. After upgrading the Tabernacle Sign at the storage yard in Fort Myers, Carter Signs re-erected the sign on December 4, 2008, at the new Carter site, a non-permitted location. On January 21, 2009, Carter obtained an electrical permit from the City of Miami for the new Carter site. During the first half of 2009, CBS identified property as a potential location for a sign. At the time, CBS was aware that the identified property was next door to the new Carter site, 25 feet away, and only 200 feet from the Tabernacle of God church location. On or about April 15, 2009, the final inspection for the new Carter site location was completed by the City of Miami. On or about September 29, 2009, CBS obtained local government permission from the Zoning Administrator for the City of Miami for its proposed location. On October 1, 2009, CBS submitted an application to the Department for outdoor advertising permits for a structure with two faces knowing that the site was located next to the new Carter site. The Department assigned the CBS application numbers 57663 and 57664 for the location 3800 Northwest 2nd Avenue off I-95 in Miami, Florida ("proposed site"). CBS was aware that Carter had obtained a building permit to erect signs at new Carter site before making application to the Department. The Department hired Cardno TBE, an engineering firm, to perform its fieldwork relating to the CBS application. On or about October 9, 2009, Mack Barnes ("Barnes"), a Cardno TBE outdoor advertising inspector, was assigned to perform an outdoor advertising inspection and site visit related to the CBS application dated October 1, 2009. Barnes performed field measurements during his inspection to evaluate CBS' application for the Department. Barnes discovered that the distance between CBS' proposed site location for its sign and the nearest permitted signs measured less than 1,500 feet from a permitted location that was assigned tag numbers BV314/315. While performing the fieldwork, Barnes discovered a sign structure bearing tag numbers BV314/315 on the catwalk located at milepost 0.873, not at the permitted location at milepost 0.906. Barnes filled out an illegal compliance report for the structure at 0.873 that was not permitted. On October 30, 2009, Barnes also walked the whole perimeter of the Tabernacle of God Christ church site and discovered that the Tabernacle Sign was no longer located at its permitted location. Additionally, tags BV314/315 were not posted or hanging from any location at the church site. On or about October 22, 2009, CBS submitted a letter to the Department with attached photographs stating: We believe if you conduct your own investigation, you will come to the inescapable conclusion that Carter's sign permitted by BV314/315 has been disassembled and removed. The former location was non- conforming under state law and they have no authority to re-establish their position there. Their new sign at 221 NW 38th St[reet] is being illegally maintained pursuant to FS 497, 14-10.007(4), and 14-10.007(6)(b). As such, we respectfully request that you not consider this illegal location in the review of the CBS Outdoor application 57663/57664 at 3800 NW 2nd Ave[nue].[3/] On or about October 28, 2009, Carter obtained local government permission from the Zoning Administrator of the City of Miami for the new Carter site. Carter also secured a building permit from the City of Miami to re-erect the sign. On or about October 30, 2009, Carter submitted an application to the Department for an outdoor advertising permit assigned application numbers 57723 and 57724, for new tags for the new Carter site at milepost 0.873. Rex Hodges ("Hodges"), a principal of Carter, explained at hearing it was a mistake for Carter to wait so long to submit the application for the new Carter site location even though the company was "working on multiple locations." He also admitted, "[we] knew needed a permit before could move the Tabernacle Sign to 221 Northwest 38th Street. . . . [we] were very busy and [it] fell through the cracks." On October 30, 2009, the Department issued a Notice of Denied Application to CBS providing the following grounds for the proposed action: "Sign does not meet spacing requirements (1500' for Interstates, 1000' for FAP). In conflict with permitted sign(s), tag#(s): BV314/315, Held by: Carter Pritchett." On November 10, 2009, the Department returned Carter's October 30, 2009, application for incompleteness. Carter failed to include the required information regarding designation for future land use and paid an $88.75 application fee instead of an $87.00 fee.4/ On November 16, 2009, the Department issued Carter a Notice of Violation-Illegally Erected Sign ("Notice") for the unpermitted erected Carter sign at the new Carter site. The Notice specified that Carter may file a completed application for a state outdoor advertising permit to determine whether the sign structure is eligible for issuance of permit. Carter did not submit a request for hearing in response to the Notice. On or about November 19, 2009, CBS filed its petition protesting its Notice of Denied Application and requested a formal hearing. On November 23, 2009, Carter resubmitted the October 30, 2009, completed application for the new Carter site. The Department assigned Carter's application numbers 57749 and 57750 for the new Carter site. The Department deemed the Carter application complete but did not process it due to the pending October 1, 2009, application for CBS' outdoor advertising sign permit within the same vicinity. On or about December 4, 2009, Barnes performed a field review for Carter's application 57749 and 57750 and discovered that tags BV314/315 were still on the billboard catwalk at the new Carter site. The Department's inspection and investigation revealed that Carter's nonconforming Tabernacle Sign was not located at the permitted location. Based upon the investigation, on or about December 18, 2009, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit for Violation to Carter. The notice provided the following basis for revocation: "This nonconforming sign no longer exists at the permitted location and is deemed abandoned by the Department, pursuant to s. 14-10.007(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code." Carter only recognized that the permit tags BV314/315 were not at the Tabernacle church site after being notified by the Department. Hodges sent Carter's crew to find the tags, which were posted on the catwalk of the sign at the new Carter site. Tags BV314/315 were not permitted for the new Carter site. After the tags were located, Hodges personally took the permit tags BV314/315 and attached them to the fence surrounding the Tabernacle church on a tag board on or about December 19, 2009. On January 15, 2010, Carter protested the Notice of Intent to Revoke.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the Florida Department of Transportation enter a final order upholding Carter's Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit for Violation and that the Department grant CBS' permit applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 17th day of April, 2012.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to sign permits for signs to be located 100 feet east of SR 29 on U.S. 41 in Collier County, Florid.a.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence presented at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner business is located off U.S. 41 in Collier County, Florida, and is a franchised boat tour company doing business within the Everglades National Park. Prior to May, 1990, the Petitioner utilized a sign site which was located 100 feet east of SR 29 on U.S. 41 to alert its customers of the turn to make to enter Petitioner's place of business. That sign (two sides, one facing either direction) was located on property owned by the Barron Collier Company. For a number of years prior to 1989, National Advertising Company (National) leased the sign location from Barron Collier and then contracted with Petitioner for the sign site. The ownership of the sign itself, as of December, 1989, has not been established. Originally, the Barron Collier Company had erected a wooden sign on telephone-type poles at the site in the 1950s. Whether that sign or its replacement was there in December, 1989, is unknown. The Barron Collier Company takes the position that they leased the sign and the site to National. No mention was made as to the sign's ownership within the lease document. In any event, for reasons unknown, Barron Collier and National had a falling out which resulted in the termination of their agreement in December, 1989. National's lease to the site was then deemed a holdover tenancy for the period of time ending in May, 1990. In May, 1990, the sign was removed from the site and National gave notice to the Department that it was abandoning the location. Barron Collier and Petitioner claim the removal of the sign was an act of vandalism or trespass. To date, no court of law, civil or criminal, has reached that legal conclusion. In October, 1990, Petitioner applied for a state sign permit for the same location. That location is currently zoned agricultural, environmentally sensitive. Additionally, that location is 288 feet from a permitted sign site. U.S. 41 at the proposed sign location is, a federal-aid primary highway. Permits for the two faces of the sign which had been at the location were previously held by National. Permits for both faces of the sign which had been there prior to May, 1990, were cancelled by National in an affidavit dated May 15,, 1990. The Department verified the removal of the sign by certificate of sign removal dated June 14, 1990. Subsequently, Petitioner received permission from the Collier County Board of County Commissioners to re-erect the sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying the sign application for the location at 100 feet east of SR 29 on U.S. 41 in Collier County, Florida, as requested by the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-7189T RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: With regard to paragraph 1, it is accepted that the Barron Collier Company erected a sign on the subject site in the 1950s. Whether that sign was the one removed in May, 1990 by National or others is unknown. Representations to the contrary are not supported by the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 2, it is accepted that the Petitioner entered into a lease with National for a sign at the site location which is the subject of this case and that that agreement was in effect from the 1960s until 1990. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are accepted. Note: there is no paragraph 5 proposed by the Petitioner. Paragraph 6 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. It is accepted, however, that the sign was removed in May, 1990, and that National cancelled its permits for the location. Paragraphs 7 through 9 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: George Vega, Jr. VEGA, BROWN, STANLEY & MARTIN, P.A. 2660 Airport Road South Naples, Florida 33962 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 ATT: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(6)(b), which provides for revocation of outdoor advertising permits for nonconforming signs that are abandoned or discontinued, is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" as alleged by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the outdoor advertising program in accordance with chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The Department adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-10, which provides for the permitting and control of outdoor advertising signs visible to and within controlled areas of interstates and federal-aid highways. Rule 14-10.007 provides regulations for nonconforming signs. Section 479.01(17), Florida Statutes, defines nonconforming signs as signs that were lawfully erected but which do not comply with later enacted laws, regulations, or ordinances on the land use, setback, size, spacing and lighting provisions of state or local law, or fail to comply with current regulations due to changed conditions. Rule 14-10.007 provides in part that: (6) A nonconforming sign may continue to exist so long as it is not destroyed, abandoned, or discontinued. "Destroyed," "abandoned," and "discontinued" have the following meanings: * * * (b) A nonconforming sign is "abandoned" or "discontinued" when a sign structure no longer exists at the permitted location or the sign owner fails to operate and maintain the sign, for a period of 12 months or longer. Signs displaying bona fide public interest messages are not "abandoned" or "discontinued" within the meaning of this section. The following conditions shall be considered failure to operate and maintain the sign: Signs displaying only an "available for lease" or similar message, Signs displaying advertising for a product or service which is no longer available, Signs which are blank or do not identify a particular product, service, or facility. Carter is licensed to engage in the business of outdoor advertising in Florida and holds an outdoor advertising permit for a nonconforming outdoor advertising sign bearing Tag No. AS 228. The outdoor advertising sign for the referenced tag number is located in Lee County, Florida ("Carter Sign"). On February 22, 2010, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit to Carter for sign bearing Tag No. AS 228. The notice advises that "this nonconforming sign has not displayed advertising copy for 12 months or more, and is deemed abandoned, pursuant to s. 14-10.007(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code." Petitioner Nissi is licensed to engage in the business of outdoor advertising in Florida and holds outdoor advertising signs bearing Tag Nos. BK 731 and BK 732, which signs are located in Pasco County, and BN 604, BN 605, AR 261, AR 262, AT 485 and AT 486, which signs are located in Hernando County ("Nissi Signs"). In June and July 2013, the Department issued notices of intent to revoke sign permits, pursuant to rule 14-10.007(6)(b), based on the signs not displaying advertising for 12 months or longer. The notice issued to Nissi advised that the Department deemed the signs as having been abandoned. Carter and Nissi, as owners of nonconforming signs receiving violations under rule 14-10.007(6)(b), have standing and timely challenged the rule in dispute herein.
