Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility under law of regulating and controlling outdoor advertising signs such as the one at issue in these proceedings. The Respondent, Marcent Florida, Inc., maintains or controls an outdoor advertising sign located at the intersection of Sandlake Road (State Road 482) and Interstate 4. The sign is located on property belonging to Grenada N.V. but Respondent has permission to maintain the sign at the location. The sign is approximately 14 feet by 48 feet, is 30 feet above ground, and, according to Respondent, "looks similar to a standard roadside billboard." At all times material to this case, the above-described sign did not have a valid DOT sign permit. At all times material to this case, the above-described sign contained language advertising lakefront, lakeview, homesites at North Bay. Additionally, the sign advertised a development known as Park Terrace. Both of the referenced developments are off-site and not immediately adjacent to the subject property. At all times material to this case, the above-referenced sign was located two hundred feet west of the center line of Sand Lake Road. Further, the sign was fifteen feet back from the right-of-way. The subject sign was erected in approximately 1985 or 1986 and is within 1500 feet of a DOT permitted sign. After Respondent received the notice of alleged violations, it made efforts to alter the language of the sign so that it would only advertise the availability of the property on which it is placed. To the date of the hearing, such changes had not been completed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order finding the subject sign to be in violation of Chapter 479 as set forth above. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1992, 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 21st day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are rejected as irrelevant, argument or fact not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay O. Barber Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas M. Ramsberger Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson Firstate Tower 255 Orange Avenue Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802-0231 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether Petitioner's applications for two outdoor advertising signs in Sumter County, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this permitting dispute, Petitioner, Rite Media Enterprises, Inc., seeks the issuance of two state sign permits from Respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT). In preliminary decisions dated August 24, 1998, DOT denied the applications on the ground the land owners had not given Petitioner permission to place the signs on their property. As an additional ground, DOT alleged that one sign violated the spacing requirements by being "[i]n conflict with a[n] existing permitted sign." Petitioner contends, however, that it has two legally enforceable leases with the property owners, and that its applications should be approved. If the applications are approved, the signs would be placed on two parcels of property near Interstate 75 in Sumter County, Florida, one on the east side and one on the west side of the highway. Both parcels are owned by Intervenors, William and Debra Farkus. On July 29, 1998, Dan Hucke, a real estate representative for Petitioner, was "scouting" for suitable billboard locations and decided that Intervenors' property would be a desirable location. After Hucke discussed the matter with Intervenors, the parties agreed to execute lease agreements that day for the two parcels of property in question. A copy of the lease agreements is found in Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2 received in evidence. In Hucke's presence, both Debra and William Farkus executed each lease agreement and a Notice of Lease. The documents reflect that only one person, Hucke, served as a witness. Hucke then carried the agreements to Petitioner's president, who executed the agreements on behalf of the corporation. In addition, Hucke's wife, a notary public, placed her seal on the Notice of Lease indicating that the signatures had been signed in her presence after an oath was administered to the lessors. Intervenors were not present when the documents were notarized. The day after the documents were executed, Debra Farkus contacted Hucke by telephone. Hucke told her he would be in the area the following Monday (August 2) and they could "work out" any problems she might have with the agreements. The same day (July 30), Debra Farkus faxed a handwritten letter to Hucke advising him to "[c]ancel the lease as per our conversation immediately," and to not "record them as per our conversation." After receiving the cancellation notice, Hucke met briefly with the Intervenors, but contended at hearing that he could not recall the substance of that conversation. On the other hand, William Farkus testified that in that meeting he again reiterated his desire for the agreements to be cancelled. In any event, Hucke acknowledged that he left the meeting with the impression that the Intervenors objected to the agreements. Despite receiving the foregoing notice and oral advice from Intervenors, Hucke nonetheless believed he had valid leases. Whether he recorded the leases is not of record. However, he promptly filed two applications for sign permits with the DOT, and he enclosed a copy of the lease agreements to evidence the fact that he had the permission of the property owners. When a DOT inspector conducted a preliminary investigation of the applications, he learned that Intervenors did not consent to having the signs on their property. Under long-standing DOT policy (since at least 1992), when this type of dispute occurs, which the inspector says happens "[a]ll the time," it requires that the applicant either submit an affidavit (or present testimony at a hearing) evidencing the fact that the property owners have consented to the placement of a sign on their property, or submit an order of a circuit court reflecting that the lease agreement is enforceable. Where a dispute such as this occurs, in no circumstance does DOT attempt to construe the legal sufficiency of a lease agreement or adjudicate the rights of a party under a lease agreement. The foregoing policy is applied by the agency on a statewide basis, without discretion, and it has a logical and rational basis, particularly since an administrative agency lacks jurisdiction to construe contracts or make property-right determinations. At the hearing, Intervenors again stated that they did not authorize Petitioner to place its signs on their property. In addition, Petitioner did not submit a court order indicating that enforceable leases between the parties existed. DOT presented testimony which established that the proposed sign location in Case No. 98-4459T would violate statutory spacing requirements because the location conflicted with an existing nearby sign. There was no evidence to contradict this assertion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order denying the applications for state sign permits filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1999, 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 16th day of September, 1999. 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 Andrew B. Thomas, Esquire Post Office Box 4961 Orlando, Florida 32802-4961 Kelly A. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Pamela S. Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact The Steakery and the Sugarloaf Leisure Club are businesses in Summerland Key, Monroe County, Florida, that are owned by William A. Hare. For the past four years, Mr. Hare has, on behalf of his respective businesses, leased two outdoor advertising signs that are located on the same support structure with one sign being directly above the other. On one sign there appears an advertisement for The Steakery while on the other there appears an advertisement for the Sugarloaf Leisure Club. These two signs face are located in Monroe County, Florida, on the northbound side of U.S. 1, a federal-aid primary highway. The support structure for the signs is approximately 10 feet from the highway. No permit has been issued by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) for either sign. The signs are located in a part of Monroe County which is zoned "Native Area". This area is not zoned commercial or industrial and is not an unzoned commercial or industrial area. The signs are not located on the business premises of the sign owner. The signs were inspected by the DOT's Outdoor Advertising Inspector and found to have no state sign permits attached them. On October 5, 1989, DOT caused to be filed against the two signs notices that neither sign had the permit required by law and that the zoning for the location of the signs did not permit outdoor advertising signs. Respondents have not contested the method by which the notices were posted. Mr. Hare, on behalf of his businesses, filed a timely demand for formal hearing following his receipt of the notices of violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order which finds that permits required by law have not been issued for the subject signs, that the signs are in a location that is ineligible for permitting because of its zoning, and which orders the immediate removal of the subject signs. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 f Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES 89-6103T AND 89-61O4T The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Department of Transportation: 1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. 2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. 3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. 4. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. 5. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Rivers Buford, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mr. William Hare Owner, The Steakery Owner, Sugarloaf Leisure Club Post Office Box 723 Summerland Key, Florida 33042 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bulding 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether the subject outdoor advertising signs are illegal because they were erected without state permits from Petitioner. Whether the subject signs should be removed. Whether Petitioner is equitably estopped to assert that the signs are illegal and should be removed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to Interstate 95 on Northwest 6th Court, which is between Northwest 75th Street and Northwest 76th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. For ease of reference, this sign will be referred to as the Interstate 95 sign. The Interstate 95 sign has two facings, each of which is visible from Interstate 95. The Interstate 95 sign is located within 147 feet of the right-of-way of Interstate 95. Respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to Interstate 395 at the corner of Northwest 14th Street and Northwest 1st Court, Miami, Dade County, Florida. For ease of reference, this sign will be referred to as the Interstate 395 sign. The Interstate 395 sign has two facings, each of which is visible from Interstate 395. The Interstate 395 sign is located within 240 feet of the right- of-way of Interstate 395. Eugene A. (Andy) Hancock, Jr., is the President of the corporate Respondent and, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, controlled the activities of Respondent. Mr. Hancock caused the corporate Respondent to lease the respective properties on which the subject signs are located in November 1998. He thereafter caused the corporate Respondent to erect the two double-faced signs at issue in this proceeding. The subject signs were constructed during September and October 1999. Each sign was constructed without a state permit from Petitioner. Each sign is within the permitting jurisdiction of Petitioner. Mr. Hancock testified that his company did not apply for permits from Petitioner because of a conversation he had with Bernard Davis, a former outdoor advertising administrator for Petitioner. Mr. Hancock testified that Mr. Davis represented to him that his company would not need permits from Petitioner if it had permits from the City of Miami. This testimony is rejected. 3/ Respondent has applied for state sign permits for the subject signs. Permits for these signs have not been issued because of their proximity to existing, permitted signs. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that the subject signs are illegal and must be removed pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 2001.
The Issue There are three issues presented: Whether the signs in question were erected at such a time and under such conditions that would entitle them to be permitted; Whether the signs in question, if not entitled to a permit, have some type of grandfather status where the owner would be entitled to compensation for the removal; and Whether the signs in question qualify as on-premise signs not requiring a permit. Both parties submitted detailed proposed recommended orders, which have been read and considered. There are few disputes concerning the basic facts. To the extent the findings herein differ from the proposals, those findings are based upon the most credible evidence. Certain findings have been deleted because they are not relevant to the issues or are not findings of fact.
Findings Of Fact The signs in question in Cases No. 81-1672T and 81-1675T are on the north-facing wall of the "El Okey Market" at 1630 NW 27th Avenue in Miami, Florida. Each sign is an aluminum framed poster six by 12 feet. An inspector of the Department of Transportation (Department) Investigated the signs at the El Okey Market in March of 1981, and notices of violation were issued to Empire Outdoor Advertising (Empire) on May 11, 1981. The parties stipulated that the inspection revealed neither sign bears a valid outdoor advertising permit issued by the Department. The signs are visible to traffic traveling south on 27th Avenue and are located within 660 feet of the right of way Empire has acknowledged owning the signs in question The inspector's investigation of the El Okey Market signs also revealed the existence of a permitted outdoor advertising sign, owned by another sign company, which is located approximately 70 feet south of the Empire signs and which also faces north. The Department introduced into evidence a map, certified by a Department official, which shows the Federal-Aid Primary Highway System for the Miami area as it existed in 1979. The inspector located the El Okey Market on the map, which indicates that that portion of 27th Avenue was a Federal-Aid Primary Highway in 1979. No contrary evidence was introduced. At the location of the subject signs, 27th Avenue is a Federal-Aid Primary Highway. The Vice President and General Manager of Empire testified that the present company evolved from a firm called Peppi Advertising Company started by his father, and that he had been employed by the company since the early 1950's. The firm was sold to Donnelly Advertising and then to Ackerly Communications, and continued to operate as Empire. The firm obtained a building permit on June 6, 1965, for the erection of billboard-type signs on the side of the building located at 1630 NW 27th Avenue. The Vice President testified it was company policy to erect signs shortly after the permit was issued. He further testified that he serviced the poster through the 1960's. The signs in question were erected in 1965, and have been in existence since that date. No permits were applied for when the signs became subject to regulation in 1971. Photographs had been taken of the signs in question showing advertising copy on July 15, 1982, to consist of Kraft Mayonnaise and EverReady Energizer Batteries. Advertising copy on June 24, 1982, shows Kraft Cheese and J & B Scotch in Spanish. The above items are products of national companies who pay Empire to advertise their products. Empire pays the El Okey Market for the privilege of placing the signs on the wall of the market. The signs in question are not on-premise signs. Patrick D. Galvin, the Department's Administrator for outdoor advertising, testified that it is the Department's policy to deny permits to signs lawfully erected within the city limits prior to the date such signs became subject to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, where the sign is less than the prescribed distance from a second sign which has obtained a valid outdoor advertising permit from the Department. It is the inspector's practice to recommend that a permit be issued to applicants where the sign in question has no permit but was built before the date permits became required and is otherwise a lawful sign. The Department admitted policy is that lawfully erected signs may lose their grandfather status as nonconforming signs under Chapter 479 and may thus become subject to uncompensated removal because the owner failed to obtain a permit within the 60-days period which followed the effective date of Florida's outdoor advertising regulations.
Recommendation The Department of Transportation has shown that the signs in question are subject to removal because they have been in existence for more than five years since they became nonconforming. The Department may remove the signs at anytime upon payment to the owner for full value of the subject signs which were erected prior to December 8, 1971. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 21st day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 L. Martin Reeder, Jr., Esquire Jeffrey Bercow, Esquire 1400 SE Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Paul N. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner's outdoor advertising sign on the east side of U. S. Highway 441, 1.2 miles north of State Road 46, in Lake County, Florida, can be maintained on the ground it is exempt from permitting requirements.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Donald E. Stevens, is entitled to maintain an existing outdoor advertising sign located on the eastern side of U. S. Highway 441, 1.2 miles north of State Road 46, in Lake County, Florida. In proposed agency action issued on October 17, 1994, Respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), denied Petitioner's application for a permit on the ground the sign was located "only 818' North of location - Tag BJ630.25. [It] [m]ust be at least 1,000' to be a conforming location." Petitioner now concedes that he cannot qualify for a permit, but he maintains that the sign is an "on- premise sign" and is therefore exempt. Petitioner owns certain real property bordering on U. S. Highway 441, in Lake County, Florida, on which is located a commercial building and a large billboard sign. The structure has been located on the property since 1968. The building contains a large, walk-in cooler, while two portable coolers are located just outside the building. An occupied mobile home sits on the rear part of the property. On September 1, 1994, Petitioner received a Notice of Violation - Illegally Erected Sign from DOT indicating the sign was not properly permitted. In response to this notice, Petitioner submitted an application to DOT on September 15, 1994. After reviewing the application, on October 17, 1994, DOT denied the same on the ground the sign violated statutory spacing requirements by being within 1,000 feet of another permitted sign. In an effort to informally resolve the matter, Petitioner met with DOT representatives in Tallahassee and eventually executed a stipulation on March 13, 1995, in which he agreed that by March 20, 1995, he would "provide [DOT] with written documentation (e.g., a lease) that the business being advertised on the subject sign is on the same business' premises as the subject sign." Petitioner also agreed to "safely cover over or paint out that portion of advertising copy on the subject sign which refers to an off-site business location." The stipulation further provided that if these conditions were met, DOT would enter a Final Order dismissing the petition for hearing and allowing Petitioner to maintain the sign as an off-premise sign. If, however, Petitioner failed to comply with the agreement, DOT would refer the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing. Contending that Petitioner has failed to meet the terms of the agreement, and that his sign is now unlawful, DOT has initiated this proceeding. In order for the sign to qualify as an on-premise sign under the terms of the stipulation, there would have to be business activity inside the building related to the business advertisement on the sign. In other words, the lessee would have to utilize a portion of the building on Petitioner's property for its business. To fulfill his side of the agreement, Petitioner provided DOT with a lease agreement dated January 5, 1995, between he and Vic Donahey, under which Donahey agreed to rent the "on-site bill board and walk in cooler in the building" for a fixed sum of $150.00 plus tax each month. Donahey operates a restaurant in Leesburg, Florida, known as Vic's Embers, which is approximately fifteen miles from the location of the sign, and a catering business at three locations in Sumter and Lake Counties. Pursuant to the lease agreement, Petitioner has allowed Donahey to carry the following message on his sign: "Vic Embers - Great Steak! Fresh Seafood! Perfect Pasta!" Accordingly, the sign meets the definition of an outdoor advertising sign. Within a few weeks after the stipulation was executed by the parties, a DOT inspector attempted to inspect the commercial building to determine whether Donahey was actually using the cooler for his business activities. At that time, the inspector found the building with a "for rent" sign and could not gain access to the cooler area. In the following months, the inspector attempted to inspect the cooler on several occasions but was never given access to that part of the building. As recently as a week prior to the hearing, the inspector again visited the premises but found the building closed and could not gain access to the premies. When the lease was executed, Petitioner was under the impression that Donahey would use the cooler to store foodstuffs (such as vegetables) for his restaurant and catering business. However, he has no knowledge as to whether Donahey has ever used the facility for storage purposes and says he has never inspected the coolers since 1995 to ascertain if Donahey actually uses them. In view of the complete absence of proof that there is any business activity in the building that is related to the message on the sign, it is found that the terms of the stipulation have not been satisfied by Petitioner, and that his existing sign cannot qualify for an exemption.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order determining that Petitioner's outdoor advertising sign is in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and should be removed. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day 2nd of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Diedre Grubbs, Agency Clerk Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-00458 Michael A. Croak 14229 U. S. Highway 441 Tavares, Florida 32778 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transporation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela S. Leslie, Esquire Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether the respondents or some of them erected and maintained outdoor advertising signs in violation of Rule 14-10.006(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, because more than two advertisements or "messages" were visible to motorists at the same location?
Findings Of Fact Visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards both of the same, concededly lawful size, mounted on a single structure, one on top of the other, 1.75 miles east of State Road 69 in Jackson County. The upper sign advertises a Holiday Inn in Marianna. The bottom sign advertises a Best Western motel (yellow logo against black background) and a McDonald's restaurant (golden arches and white lettering against a red background.) Between the two businesses's names on the bottom sign board appears "11 MI EXIT 21" against a white background. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1716T). Also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted on the same structure, one on top of the other, 2.4 miles east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises the Chipley Motel. Over the words "THIS EXIT," the central portion of the lower sign advertises a Stuckey's store. Flanking this central portion, both ends of the billboard are taken up with advertisements featuring petroleum trademarks (a scallop shell and a star.) Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1714T). Visible to east-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted one on top of the other on the same poles, 1.2 miles west of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises a single business establishment. Underneath, half the sign is devoted to advertising the Washington Motor Inn and half to touting The Outlet Center. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1923T). Visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted on the same structure one on top of the other, 2.7 miles east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advises motorists of the proximity of a motel. The lower sign advertises both a Chevron filling station and a Western Sizzlin restaurant, devoting half the panel to each. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1921T). Also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 is a pair of billboards mounted one over the other at a site 1.3 miles west of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper panel is devoted exclusively to informing the driving public of a nearby motel. The lower billboard, like the lower billboard located 1.7 miles east of State Road 69, advertises a McDonald's restaurant and a Best Western motel, and does so in a similar bipartite manner. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89- 1922T) Finally, also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 is another pair of billboards mounted on top of one another on the same poles, a mile east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises a McDonald's restaurant. Like the lower sign located 2.4 miles east of State Road 77, the lower sign located a mile east advertises not only Stuckey's, but also Shell and Texaco gasolines. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1924T). A handbook DOT employees use depicts three billboards at one location, over the caption: "One of the three faces is illegal if erected after January 28, 1972. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. DOT has not promulgated the handbook as a rule. The evidence did not establish when the billboards in question here were erected. But for Milford C. Truette's perspicacity, these cases might never have arisen. As acting outdoor advertising supervisor for DOT's District II, he told Elsie Myrick, a property and outdoor advertising inspector for DOT, that she "might want to check into ... [the signs involved here] and see that they were in violation." Myrick deposition p. 8. In the subsequently formed opinion of Ms. Myrick, it is unlawful for an outdoor advertising sign to advertise three or more locations at which the same advertiser does business or three or more businesses at the same location, although the proprietor of a single store might lawfully advertise three or more products for sale at the store, and a motel owner is free to advertise a restaurant and a cocktail lounge, at least if they are under the same roof. Respondent's signs are in violation, in Ms. Myrick's view, because, "You're getting across more messages than what you're allowed in a space." Myrick deposition, p. 15. Ms. Myrick thought a sign advertising several stores housed in a single mall would be illegal, but Mr. Truette and Mr. Kissinger, DOT motorist information services coordinator, disagreed. Ms. Myrick rejected the suggestion that common ownership of advertisers would make a difference, but Mr. Kissinger's views on this point were less clear. T.52-3. Mr. Kissinger believes that an outdoor advertising sign can advertise multiple locations at which an enterprise conducts business, or even multiple business entities, if they are all located on the same parcel of real estate.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the notices to show cause issued in each of these consolidated cases. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, 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 20th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 89-1714T, 89-1716T, 89-1921T, 89-1922T, 89-1923T, 89-1924 Except for the last sentence in proposed finding of fact No. 4, petitioner's proposed findings of fact 1 through 5 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact were not numbered, but have been treated fully in the recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation ("DOT") originally issued sign permits in 1964 for the location authorized by Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2, and these permits have been renewed continuously thereafter. The location authorized by Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2 is on the east side of U.S. 441. Effective October 30, 1987, Eagle Outdoor Advertising, Inc., which has owned Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2 since 1968 or earlier, transferred them to Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corp. ("Peterson"). On July 10, 1987, Gator Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("Gator") applied to DOT for sign permits. The location for which Gator sought sign permits is on the same side of U.S. 441, approximately 348 feet from the location authorized by Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2. On July 16, 1987, DOT rejected Gator's application solely because the proposed sign location did not meet applicable spacing requirements relative to the sign authorized by Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2. In 1984, the owner withdrew his permission for maintaining the sign authorized by Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2. There has been no sign lease or owner permission for a sign at this location since 1984. As of the date of the final hearing, Peterson had not obtained the owner's permission to maintain a sign. Representatives of the property owner and a representative of Peterson have discussed the possibility of owner permission, but it had not been unequivocally granted.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Claude R. Finley is the sole owner of Pensacola Outdoor Advertising. He purchased property on April 17, 1984, having a sign structure with four faces located thereon. This sign structure was owned by the Lamar Company. The Department had issued for permits to the Lamar Company for the four faces of this sign. Mr. Finley was aware that this sign was permitted by the Department to Lamar when he purchased this property. Mr. Finley applied for sign permits at this approximate location by application dated April 15, 1984. The Department denied the application because of sign permit numbers AD809-8, A15824-10, A1585-10 and 6821-10 held by the Lamar Company, and because no preliminary approval letter from Escambia County had been obtained. A second application for permits was sent to the Department on June 12, 1984, which was also returned unapproved by letter dated June 18, 1984, because of the existing permits that had been issued to Lamar. Mr. Finley attempted on numerous occasions to work out a lease with Lamar for the subject location, but he was not successful. By letter dated June 12, 1984, Mr. Finley notified the Lamar Company that it had 15 days to remove the sign structure from his property. Mr. Hollis Wood, General Manager of the Lamar Company, responded by letter dated June 22, 1984, that he would remove the sign structure on June 30, and cancel its permit tags after the expiration of its lease for the sign site. Mr. Finley rode by the location on I-10, on June 30th, about 3:00 p.m. He did not stop, but he observed no sign there. He could tell by the bent trees that some work had been done in the area. The previous time Mr. Finley had been by the site, earlier in the week, the sign was standing. By letter dated June 13, 1924, Mr. Finley advised the Department that he was the owner of the property where the Lamar Company held permits, and he advised he was cancelling the permits for signs on his property. By letter dated June 19, 1984, the Department informed the Lamar Company that it had received information that the Lamar Company no longer had the permission of the property owner to maintain the sign at the location where the permits were issued, and that the permits would be invalidated by the Department unless evidence was provided to refute the information, or a hearing requested within 30 days to challenge this cancellation action. Mr. Wood, by letter dated June 29, 1984, requested an administrative hearing. Later Charles W. Lamar III, by letter dated July 20, 1984, withdrew the request for an administrative hearing, advising that the sign structure in question had been removed, and that a cancellation affidavit and the permit tags were being returned to the Department. The first application for sign permits on the south side of I-10, 2.2 miles east of SR 297, for signs facing east and west, submitted by the Petitioner, was denied because of the four existing permits held by the Lamar Company at this location, and because no preliminary approval from Escambia County for erecting billboards that had been obtained. The county's preliminary approval is part of the application process for locations in Escambia County. The Lamar Company's sign permits remained outstanding until after July 1, 1984, when the new spacing requirements of the 1984 amendment to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, became effective. There are two permitted sign locations approximately 1,000 feet to the east and to the west of the subject site. These permits are held by Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising. The Petitioner's second permit application was denied because the permits held by the Lamar Company were not cancelled until July when the new spacing law became effective requiring 1,500 feet between signs on I-10, resulting in a spacing conflict with the two Bill Slater locations approximately 1,000 feet to the east and west of the proposed site. The Department's procedure for revoking permits allows a party holding a permit to cancel it by submitting an affidavit and returning the tags, stating the reason for cancellation in the affidavit. Until permits are revoked or cancelled by the Department, they remain valid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order finding that the application of Pensacola Outdoor Advertising for sign permits at a location on the south side of I-10, 2.2 miles east of S.R. 297, facing east and west, in Escambia County, Florida, be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, 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 28th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald Holley, Esquire Post Office Box 268 Chipley, Florida 32428 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
Findings Of Fact A sign advertising "Kapok Tree" in Daytona Business Park was permitted by the Department of Transportation (Department) at the intersection of Ventress Boulevard and U.S. Highway 92 (hereinafter referred to as the Kapok Tree sign). Lamar-East Florida Outdoor Advertising (Lamar) applied for an outdoor advertising permit for a sign to be located at Bill's Fruit Stand, 380 feet east from the Kapok Tree sign. The Department processed the Lamar application and issued a permit for said sign, although the Lamar sign was within the proscribed distance (500 feet) of the Kapok Tree sign. The Department conducted an on-site inspection, and the inspector failed to notice the Kapok Tree sign. The Department would not have issued the Lamar permit had the Kapok Tree sign been noted. The Kapok Tree sign had its permits displayed. Thereafter, Don Bell and Company (Bell) applied for an outdoor advertising permit for a sign located approximately 30 feet from the intersection of Bayless Avenue and U.S. Highway 92, 480 feet from the Lamar sign location, and 810 feet from the Kapok Tree sign. The Department denied Bell's application because that sign location was less than 500 feet from the Lamar sign location. Neither Lamar nor Bell have constructed signs at the subject locations for which they have applied for permits, although lease payments have been made by both Lamar and Bell. Both the Kapok Tree sign and Lamar have current permits, and Bell challenges the validity of the Lamar permit. But for its distance from the Lamar sign site, the Department would approve the Bell application. All parties stipulate that the Lamar notarized and certified application recites there is no sign within 500 feet of its site, when in fact the Kapok Tree sign was and is 380 feet from Lamar's site. Administration of outdoor advertising is dependent upon the representations made by an applicant in its application and the verification of said data by on-site inspection by the Department's inspector in issuing outdoor advertising permits. The Kapok Tree sign is not an on-premises sign.
Recommendation Having found that there are no valid grounds for denial, it is recommended that the Petitioner's application for an outdoor advertising permit be approved. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 22nd day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Ted Doran, Esquire 100 Seabreeze Boulevard, Suite 130 Post Office Box 2134 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward M. Keating, Manager Lamar-East Florida Outdoor Advertising 2801 South Ridgewood Avenue South Daytona, Florida 32019 Paul N. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
