Findings Of Fact On November 4, 1982, the Petitioner, Enterprise Outdoor Advertising, Inc., submitted applications for permits for two signs facing Interstate No. 4 (hereafter I-4) near the intersection of I-4 and 50th Street in Tampa, Florida. The specific location of the proposed signs is described as: Sec. 205 E/B .02 F/W Interstate I-4 50th Street and I-4 Sec. 205 E/B .02 F/E Interstate I-4 50th Streetand I-4 Both applications were disapproved by the Department of Transportation on November 9, 1982. The two signs for which Petitioner sought permits were to be located on a piece of property owned by Mr. E. B. Rood (hereafter referred to as Rood property). The Rood property is located adjacent to I-4, east of 50th Street, which runs north and south. The west facing sign application (see Respondent's Exhibit 11) was denied by the Department of Transportation because of a conflicting existing sign, Permit No. 7716-12, held by Foster and Kleiser, Intervenor. Permit No. 7716-12 was for a westerly facing sign physically located on the Rood property, pursuant to a lease between Intervenor and E. B. Rood. (See Respondent's Exhibit 4.) On November 3, 1982, Mr. E. B. Rood provided written notice to Foster and Kleiser that he was cancelling the lease. By the terms of the lease, the Foster and Kleiser sign then had to be removed within 30 days. On November 9, 1982, when the Petitioner's application was denied, the sign erected pursuant to Permit No. 7716-12 was still physically standing on the Rood property. Sometime prior to December 3, 1982, the sign was removed by Foster and Kleiser and the Department of Transportation was notified that the sign had been dismantled. (See Respondent's Exhibit 9.) Subsequent to dismantling its west facing sign, the Intervenor, Foster and Kleiser, applied for and received a permit for a westerly facing sign on a piece of property adjacent to I-4 just west of 50th Street and the Rood property. This second piece of property, located west of the Rood property, is referred to as the Bize property. At the time Foster and Kleiser applied for the westerly facing sign permit on the Bize property, there were no pending applications for a conflicting sign, and the previous conflicting sign on the Rood property had been dismantled. The application filed by Petitioner for a permit for an easterly facing sign on the Rood property was denied because of a conflicting permit, No. AG558- Permit AG558-12 was for a sign on the Bize property which would face east adjacent to I-4. At the time of Petitioner's application on November 4, 1982, no sign had actually been erected pursuant to Permit No. AG558-12. Permit No. AG558-12 had been issued to Foster and Kleiser in February, 1982, pursuant to an application accompanied by a written lease containing the purported signature of Mr. John T. Bize, the named lessor. (See Respondent's Exhibit 6.) Mr. John T. Bize died on January 1, 1977, and, therefore, was deceased on February 19, 1982, the date of the lease submitted by Foster and Kleiser with its application for Permit No. AG558-12. The only witness signature appearing on the lease was that of Thomas Marc O'Neill. Mr. O'Neill did not observe or witness the lessor sign the lease and felt, at the time he signed, that he was witnessing the signature of Ronald L. Westberry, who signed the lease on behalf of Foster and Kleiser. At the time he signed as a witness, Mr. O'Neill was and continues to be an employee of Foster and Kleiser. Subsequent to its disapproval of Petitioner's application for an easterly facing sign permit, the Department of Transportation was informed by Petitioner of the invalid lease on which Permit No. AG558-12 had been issued. By letter dated November 17, 1982, the Department notified Foster and Kleiser of the invalid lease and gave Foster and Kleiser 30 days within which to correct the problem. On November 22, 1982, the Department received a new lease for the Bize property and sign permit AG558-12. The new lease contained the following addendum: Effective date of lease shall be the of [sic] closing of purchase of said property or erection of signs, which- ever is first. There was no further evidence of the actual effective date of the lease. The Department of Transportation has a policy of requiring, with an application for a sign permit, a lease or other written evidence that the landowner has given permission to use his property for outdoor advertising purposes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's two applications for outdoor advertising sign permits. DONE and ENTERED this 20 day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Houllis, Esquire 10525 Park Boulevard North Seminole, Florida 33542 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven L. Selph, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1441 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Mr. Paul Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In May and June of 1983 the Department received in its district office in Chipley, Florida, applications for four permits for outdoor advertising signs to be located adjacent to I-10, approximately one mile west of S.R. 285, in Walton County, Florida. Two of these applications requested permits to erect a two-faced, back-to-back structure on I-10, 4,262 feet west of S.R. 285, and two of these applications sought permits to erect a two-faced, back-to-back structure on I-10, 5,262 feet west of S.R. 285. These permit applications stated that the locations requested were in a commercial or industrial area within 800 feet of a business. The Department's outdoor advertising inspector approved these permit applications in June of 1983. When he visited the sites he found a small building, approximately eight to ten feet by approximately ten to twelve feet in dimension, situated at a point 300 feet from one of the sign sites and 700 feet from the other site. There was a pile of steel lying on the ground adjacent to this building. He was told by the Respondent's president that the Respondent's plan was to put an office on the site, and a building on which to work on signs and to store material. On the basis of his inspection of the site, coupled with these representations of the Respondent's president, the inspector approved the four applications for sign permits. Subsequently, in 1984 after the permits had been issued, the small building had been removed and was replaced by a shed and another small building. However, in 1983 at the time the applications for permits were submitted, the site where the business activity was planned did not have telephone service, nor did this location have any mailing address, and there were no employees of the Respondent on the site until 1984. The Respondent obtained this location for the purpose and with the intent of locating its sign business thereon, but when the permit applications were submitted the site had not yet become a commercial location. Much of the evidence presented by both sides at the hearing concerned activities conducted at the location between the two sign sites subsequent to the time when the permit applications were submitted. However, this is irrelevant. The salient facts are that the president of the Respondent knew that a business activity within 800 feet of the sign site was required in order to obtain lawful permits; he intended to establish his own sign business at a location between the two sign sites which would comply with the permitting requirements; but in June of 1983 when the permit applications were submitted, there was not then in existence any business activity within 800 feet of the proposed sign sites. Thus, the statement of the Respondent on its applications that the proposed sign sites were in an unzoned commercial area within 800 feet of a business was false, and the Respondent's president knew this when he submitted the applications.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permits numbered AJ511-12, AJ510-12, AJ509-12 and AJ508- 12, held by Reese Outdoor Displays, Inc., be revoked, and the signs which were erected pursuant to these permits be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 20th day of May, 1985 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 20th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 George Ralph Miller, Esquire P.O. Box 687 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On September 1, 1981, the Department received in its district office in Chipley, Florida, the Respondent's application for a permit to erect an outdoor advertising sign adjacent to I-10, approximately 1.62 miles east of SR 69S in Jackson County, Florida. This permit application stated that the location requested was in a commercial or industrial area within 800 feet of a business. The Department's outdoor advertising inspector visited the site after having reviewed the Respondent's application and being told by Harry Fuqua that he would find a business called Branch's Garage there. He found a house with a tin farm-type building like a barn in the back. Inside this tin barn were some tools and welding equipment. There was a sign on the door stating the business hours, and another sign on the side of this tin building stating the name Branch's Garage. None of this was visible from I-10, however; all that could be seen from the interstate was the roof of the residence and part of the tin barn; there was no indication to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity was being conducted at this location. The inspector's supervisor and the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator both visited the site prior to approval of the subject permit. The supervisor had also been told that he would find a business known as Branch's Garage there, and he was looking for it. At the site he observed what appeared to be a garage and some work being done. This could not be seen from I-10, and from the interstate he could not see anything that would indicate to traffic that a garage was at this location. The Respondent's representative, Harry Fuqua, admits that no business activity was visible from I-10, and that there was nothing to indicate to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity was being conducted at this location. The site where Branch's Garage is located cannot be reached from I-10 directly. It would have to be approached from one of the side roads after traffic had exited the interstate. Based upon his inspection of the site, coupled with the Respondent's representation that a business called Branch's Garage existed there, the inspector approved the Respondent's application for a sign permit. Thereafter, both the supervisor and the Right-of-Way Administrator also approved the application. The permit was issued on or about September 8, 1981, because of the proximity of the proposed site to the nearby business known as Branch's Garage which had been observed by the inspector, his supervisor, and the Right- of-Way Administrator. Subsequently, after the permit had been issued, the Respondent erected its sign which is the subject of this proceeding. In late 1984 and early 1985 there was no business activity at the subject site and there continues to be nothing there to indicate to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity exists at this location. The Respondent through its agent Harry Fuqua, submitted the application for the subject permit, and designated thereon that the proposed location was in an unzoned commercial area within 800 feet of a business. This application also certified that the sign to be erected met all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit number AF191-10 held by Fuqua & Davis, Inc., be revoked, and the sign which was erected pursuant to this permit be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 11th day of July, 1985 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 11th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine C. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 James J. Richardson, Esquire P. O. Box 12669 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2669 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the subject signs of Respondent should be removed.
Findings Of Fact A notice of violation and a notice to show cause was sent to the Respondent, Harry Moody Signs and delivered on September 13, 1977 alleging violations of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes and violations of Rule 14-1O.4. The violation notice was marked Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 and entered into evidence. The notice cited six signs and for clarity the Hearing Officer numbered the signs from one through six on the violation notice. Testimony and evidence was taken on each sign as follows: Sign One: This sign was withdrawn from consideration by consent of both parties. Sign Two: The parties agreed that a permit would be issued for this sign within the city limits of Weeki-Wachee, Florida providing it was removed from the state's right-of-way and moved back some 51 feet. Sign Three: This double faced sign has no permit. The sign consists of a small sign stating "This is Beacon Country" which is attached to and on the top of a large sign that states "See ten different models, Beacon Woods, Beacon Homes by Hoeldtke"; on the poles at the bottom of the signs is a third sign reading "P G A Golf-Restaurant- Shopping Turn Right." Sign Four: This sign has an expired 1972 permit tag attached to it. Sign Five: This sign has no current permit tag attached thereto. Sign Six: This sign has no current permit or 1974 tag attached thereto. The Respondent admitted that this sign was in violation of the outdoor advertising law. The Respondent disclaimed any interest in Sign One and the Petitioner moved to withdraw the charges. Sign Two is located on the state's right-of-way and is within the city limits of Weeki-Wachee. It was stipulated that the sign would be removed or relocated within 20 days from date of the hearing but the Respondent has not so notified the Hearing Officer of removal. The double faced sign marked as Sign Three was the subject of argument by both attorneys who requested to submit & memorandum of law as to whether the sign was in violation of Section 479.16(3). No memorandum of law has been received from either attorney although the 30 days allotted to submit said memorandum has expired. Signs marked Four and Five have no current permit tag attached thereto. The Respondent admitted that there was no current permit for Sign number Six and the sign was in violation. The parties agreed that the sign may not be eligible for a permit.
Recommendation Remove each of the subject signs designated; Sign Two, Three, Four, Five and Six. Invoke the penalties provided for by Section 479.18 to wit: "479.18 Penalties. - Any person, violating any provision of this chapter whether as principal, agent or employee, for which violation no other penalty is prescribed, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in Sec. 775.083; and such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each month during any portion of which any violation of this chapter is committed, continued or permitted. The existence of any advertising copy on any outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising sign or advertisement outside incorporated towns and cities shall constitute prima facie evidence that the said outdoor advertising sign or advertisement was constructed, erected, operated, used, maintained or displayed with the consent and approval and under the authority of the person whose goods or services are advertised thereon." DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William D. Rowland, Esquire 115 East Morse Blvd. Winter Park, Florida 32790
Findings Of Fact On January 27, 1982, the department of Transportation notified the Petitioner, Vortex Springs, Inc., that its applications for the outdoor advertising sign permits which are the subject of these proceedings were denied because the zoning had been determined to be unacceptable. These applications seek permits authorizing two signs on I-10 in Holmes County, Florida, one approximately 1.38 miles west of SR 81 facing west, and the other approximately 1.1 miles east of SR 81 facing east. Both of these locations are inside the city limits of the municipality of Ponce de Leon, Florida. The signs for which the Petitioner seeks permits were already erected when the subject applications were submitted to the department. There was no other evidence presented that was relevant or would support additional findings of fact.
Findings Of Fact U.S. 1 is a federal-aid primary highway and, in the vicinity of University Boulevard, is a divided highway, with parkway between north-and- southbound lanes. University Boulevard (SR 109) is not a federal-aid primary highway. Petitioner holds a lease on the property on which the proposed sign is to be erected and, in fact, already has a structure on this site and a permit for a north-facing sign on this structure. The proposed sign meets all DOT requirements except spacing. The structure on which the proposed sign is to be displayed is located on the east side of U.S. 1, 125 feet north of the intersection with University Boulevard. Lamar Dean Outdoor Advertising Company was issued a permit for a 14 by 48 foot sign along the east side of University Boulevard, 150 feet south of the intersection with U.S. 1. This sign faces west. That application for permit (Exhibit 8) shows the type highway to be U.S. 1, a federal-aid primary highway. A sign located on University Boulevard in Jacksonville which was not visible from a federal-aid primary highway would not require a DOT permit. This Lamar structure, which carries a Jack Bush-Toyota South copy, can easily be seen by persons in vehicles travelling on U.S. 1 and it is on the same side of U.S. 1 and within 500 feet of Petitioner's proposed sign. The Department of Transportation's (DOT) inspectors maintain inventories of all permitted signs. The criteria used by all DOT sign inspectors is to log any sign that can be seen and read from the primary highway. Actually, the Jack Bush sign can be seen by both north-and-southbound traffic on U.S. 1 when in the vicinity of University Boulevard but the northbound traffic passes closer to the sign. It is therefore carried by DOT as a south-facing sign.
The Issue Whether the structure described in the Department of Transportation's Notice of Violation No. 10B DB 2000 007 (Notice) is in violation of Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and therefore subject to removal pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is an outdoor advertising company that was formerly known as AK Media. On December 10, 1998, Petitioner (while still known as AK Media) entered into an agreement with NWT Partners, Ltd., the owner of the New World Tower (Building), a "thirty story four (4) sided building" located at 100 North Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, Florida, to lease certain portions of the Building. The lease agreement contained the following provisions, among others: Effective Date. This Lease shall become effective on the later of (x) the date that Tenant provides written notice to Landlord that Tenant has obtained all permits, license and governmental approvals necessary or required to enable Tenant to construct, maintain and operate the Wall Faces and Wall Structures, as hereinafter defined or (y) January 1, 1999 (the "Effective Date"). Tenant shall have ninety (90) days from the date of this Lease to obtain all such permits, licenses and approvals or the Landlord may cancel this Lease. Purpose. The purpose of this lease is for Tenant to construct, maintain and operate painted, printed, illuminated and/or electrical signs on the north and south wall faces of the Building (the "Wall Faces"), and all other uses not inconsistent therewith, including all necessary supporting structures, devices, illumination facilities and connections, service ladders and equipment, and other appurtenances (the "Wall Fixtures"). All construction to the Building, and advertising thereon, including construction drawing and artwork to be furnished by the Tenant shall be subject to Landlord's written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Tenant's Right to Enter and Use. For the duration of this Lease, Tenant shall have the non-exclusive right to enter onto the Property and into the Building and use the Wall Faces for the purposes described in this Lease and any other purposes allowed or required by this Lease and Tenant has the exclusive right to use the Wall Faces Property for advertising. In exercising Tenant's rights hereunder, Tenant may hang or attach the Wall Fixtures to the roof and exterior structure of the Building. Tenant shall maintain the Wall Fixtures at Tenant's cost and expense. Tenant shall pay all utility charges in connection with the operation and maintenance of the Wall Fixtures. Tenant shall be responsible for damage to the Building which is caused by Tenant's operation and maintenance and removal of the Wall Fixtures and shall repair any such damage and restore the Building to the condition it was in immediately prior to such damages at the expiration or termination of this Lease. Term. The term of this Lease is for five (5) years from the "Rent Commencement Date," as hereinafter defined, to the last day of the month during which the fifth anniversary of the Rent Commencement Date occurs (the "Term"). Rent. Tenant shall pay Landlord rent annually, in accordance with the schedule (the "Rent Schedule") set forth on Exhibit "B" hereto, inclusive of all taxes . . . . Contracts. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, Tenant will use its best efforts to obtain contracts (the "Contracts") for advertising on the Building which exceed the amount of the Guaranteed Rent, as set forth on the Rent Schedule. . . . 9. Ownership/Removal. At all times, Tenant is and shall remain the owner of the Wall Fixtures and all signs and permits of any kind in relation thereto, and has the right to remove the Wall Fixtures at any time. . . . Exhibit "B" Rent Schedule Tenant shall pay annual rent to Landlord in an amount equal to the greater of (x) Fifty-five percent (55%) of the gross revenues attributable to advertisements displayed on the North Wall and the South Wall of the Building less any agency fee or commissions not greater than 16 2/3% to bona fide third parties (the "Net Revenues") associated with such advertisements (the "Percentage Rent") or (y) the minimum guaranteed annual rent (the "Guaranteed Rent") hereinafter set forth as follows: . . . The Landlord may terminate the Lease Agreement upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to Tenant if either Wall is vacant for more than one hundred twenty (120) consecutive days during the Term of the Lease and the Tenant has failed to obtain a contract, before the expiration of such notice period, for advertising on the North Wall or South Wall, as the case may be, pursuant to which the projected Percentage Rent under such contract would exceed the Guaranteed Rent. . . . Subsequently, Petitioner (while still operating under the name AK Media) entered into a "bulletin contract" with New York Outdoor, an advertising agency acting on behalf of Supreme International, in which Petitioner agreed, for a fee, to produce and maintain an "outdoor advertising display" for Supreme International on the north wall of the Building. Supreme International sells "Perry Ellis" and "Perry Ellis for Men" brand fashion apparel. In accordance with the "bulletin contract," Petitioner produced an "outdoor advertising display" for Supreme International on the north wall of the Building. The "outdoor advertising display" that Petitioner produced was a large mural more than 100 feet high and more than 60 feet wide. Such a product is referred to in the outdoor advertising industry as a "wallscape." The "wallscape" that Petitioner produced for Supreme International consisted of artwork (a picture of a young woman) and print (the words "Perry Ellis for Men") on a "canvass-type" material that was mounted on a "picture frame" support structure attached to the north wall of the Building. It was located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of a roadway, US Highway 1 (also known, in that location, as North Biscayne Boulevard), which is a part of the federal-aid primary highway system. The artwork and print could be seen without visual aid by motorists of normal visual acuity travelling on US Highway 1 in the vicinity of the Building. At no time has Petitioner applied for, or obtained, a permit from the Department authorizing it to erect and maintain a "sign," as that term is used in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, on the north wall of the Building. Petitioner, however, did seek and obtain a Class II Special Permit from the City of Miami. The permit was granted by the Miami City Commission, through the passage of Miami City Commission Resolution 99- 828, at its October 26, 1999, meeting. The printed agenda distributed in advance of the meeting stated the following concerning the permit for which Petitioner had applied: Consideration of approving Class II Special Permit No. 99-0142 for the property located at approximately 100 North Biscayne Boulevard for a sign of a graphic or artistic value. This will allow a mural containing a commercial message. The resolution passed by the Miami City Commission at the meeting read as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR ISSUANCE OF CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 99-0142, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THERE SHALL BE NO WRITING PERMITTED WITH THE MURAL AND OTHER CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 100 NORTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO SECTION 401 OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED. WHEREAS, the Director for the Department of Planning is recommending approval of Class II Special Permit Application No. 99-0142, with conditions, for the property located at approximately 100 North Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida; and WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, requires City Commission approval of the Class II Special Permit as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of this matter, finds the application for a Class II Special Permit does meet the applicable requirements of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, and deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to approve the recommendation of the Director of the Department of Planning to uphold the issuance of the Class II Special Permit, subject to the condition that there shall be no writing permitted with the mural and other conditions as recommended by the Planning Department; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this section. Section 2. The recommendation of the Director of the Department of Planning to issue Class II Special Permit Application No. 99-0142, subject to the condition that there shall be no writing permitted with the mural and other conditions as recommended by the Planning Department, for the property located at approximately 100 North Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida, is hereby approved, and the City Commission finds that the issuance of Class II Special Permit Application No. 99-0142, with conditions does meet the applicable requirements of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, as amended. Section 3. The Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor. Inasmuch as the words "Perry Ellis for Men" were on the "wallscape" that Petitioner produced for Supreme International, this "wallscape" was not in compliance with the condition imposed by the Miami City Commission, in issuing the Class II Special Permit to Petitioner, that there "be no writing permitted with the mural." On February 22, 2000, Bernard Davis, who, at the time, was the Department's District 6 Roadside Outdoor Advertising Administrator, issued a Notice of Violation (Notice No. 10B DB 2000 007) alleging that the "wallscape" on the north wall of the Building (described above) was "in violation of Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, which requires a permit for all outdoor advertising signs not exempted by Section 479.16, Florida Statutes" and directing that the sign be removed within 30 days. Petitioner thereafter requested an administrative hearing on the matter. Prior to the hearing, the artwork and print on the "wallscape" on the north wall of the Building were changed. As of the date of the final hearing in this case, the "wallscape" on the north wall of the Building contained a picture of a man and part of a woman and the words "Perry Ellis," underneath which was written "www.perryellis.com," Supreme International's website address. The Monday and Tuesday before the final hearing (February 5 and 6, 2001), Mr. Davis' successor, C. Jean Cann, went inside the Building to determine whether Supreme International had an "on-premises presence." On Monday, February 5, 2001, Ms. Cann entered the Building at approximately 1:15 p.m. After obtaining information from the Building's Electronic Directory that "Perry Ellis" occupied room 2128, she took the elevator to the 21st floor. After getting off the elevator, she walked down a hallway, where she saw a paper sign on a door which read "Perry Ellis/Supreme International, Incorporated, 2128." When she knocked on the door, no one answered. She waited 10 to 15 seconds and then knocked again, with the same result. She then, unsuccessfully, attempted to open the door. At around 1:45 p.m., she left the Building. Ms. Cann returned to the Building the following day at approximately 11:40 a.m., at which time she spoke to a security guard, who informed her that "Perry Ellis" "was in 2126." She then again went up to the 21st floor, and, on the same door that she had seen the "Perry Ellis/Supreme International, Incorporated, 2128" sign the day before, she saw a paper sign that read "Perry Ellis/Supreme International, Incorporated, 2126." Her knocks on the door, like those of the previous day, went unanswered, and she was again unable to open the door. At around 12:00 noon, she exited the Building. At no time during either of her two visits was Ms. Cann able to ascertain what, if any, business activity Supreme International was engaging in inside the Building.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that the "wallscape" on the north side of the Building is a "sign" that was erected and is being maintained without the Department-issued permit required by Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and that it therefore is a public and private nuisance that must be removed pursuant to Section 479.105(1), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 2001.
The Issue Whether the sign of Petitioner should be removed for having been erected without a permit from the Respondent, the Department of Transportation.
Findings Of Fact A violation notice was issued by the Respondent against the Petitioner on August 18, 1977, alleging that Petitioner was in violation of Chapter 479.07(2) and Rule 14-10.04, inasmuch as Petitioner maintained a sign with no current tag visible, located .3 miles north of State Road 516 e/s on US Highway #1 (308 north, Mile Post 13.62) with copy "Fish Camp". Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. There was no dispute between the parties as to the location of the sign as cited in the violation notice but the parties stipulated that the copy of the subject sign advertised "Castaway Point, Scenic, Secluded, Relaxing, Enjoyable". It was undisputed that the sign carried no visible permit tag. There was no dispute that the sign was erected without a permit from the Respondent, Department of Transportation. The sign is a two faced sign, one faces north and one faces south. There is a permitted sign less than 500 feet from the subject sign facing the same way on the same side of the street, both for the north face and for the south face. There has been a sign located in the approximate position of the Petitioner's sign for many years advertising the business of the Petitioner over 100 feet away. The sign was lighted in 1975. The Petitioner contends: (a) that the first time he knew of the law was at the time he received the subject violation notice (b) that there are many other signs in the vicinity of his sign which are not 500 feet apart and which advertise businesses 100 miles away (c) that the Respondent, Department of Transportation, notified the large sign companies before the private individuals were notified and therefore gave the large sign companies the opportunity to permit their signs whereas the individuals had no opportunity to secure permits for their signs (d) that the public would have no way of finding Petitioner's business unless the sign is allowed to stand. The Respondent contends: (a) that the sign cannot be permitted inasmuch as it can not comply with the statutory spacing requirement in its present location and that it now stands without a current tag visible.
Recommendation Remove the Peittioner's sign, unless said sign is removed by Petitioner or is satisfactorily relocated within 10 days of the issuance of this order. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Gary Dotson 315 Bay Boulevard Palm Bay, Florida 32905 Philip Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether respondent's initial proposal to deny petitioner's application for a permit to construct an outdoor advertising sign had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it occurred or was otherwise substantially justified; or, if not, whether special circumstances would make an award of costs and fees unjust?
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1988, petitioner proposed to erect a sign facing east, within 15 feet of an existing outdoor advertising sign, on the north side of State Road 200, approximately .6 miles west of the intersection of State Road 200 and I-75. He planned to place a single face at such an angle to the existing, single-faced sign that a V configuration would result. Another outdoor advertising company held a permit for the existing sign, which faced west. It stood on property belonging to a land owner who did not own the property to the east on which Ray proposed to raise its sign. On November 10, 1988, the Department of Transportation issued a notice of intent to deny petitioner's application for a permit to construct the outdoor advertising sign. Petitioner reasonably incurred attorneys' fees of $787.50 and costs of $28.00 before Department of Transportation decided, well after the evidentiary hearing held April 5, 1989, to issue the permit, after all. As far as the record reveals, the Department has faced only one other situation in which an applicant for a permit to construct a sign, within 15 feet of an existing sign, proposed to build on property not owned by the land owner who had leased to the company which had built the existing sign, viz., Ad-Con Outdoor Advertising v. Department of Transportation, No. 89- 0087T. In that case, too, the Department issued a permit for the second sign. In an internal memorandum dated February 17, 1989, respondent's Rivers Buford wrote Dallas Gray, while the Ad-Con application was pending, the following: Inasmuch as the proposed sign would be within fifteen feet of another sign it would, by virtue of the provisions of Rule Chapter 14-10.1006(1)(b)3, be considered a part of a V-type sign and thus its two faces would be exempt from the minimum spacing requirements of Section 479.07, F.S. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. The memorandum antedated the final hearing in Case No. 88-6107 by more than six weeks. Presumably, the intended rule reference was to Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code. At the hearing in the present case, the Department of Transportation produced two witnesses to explain why the Department initially turned down petitioner's application. In their view, the Department of Transportation should never have granted petitioner's application, in order to protect rights vested in the other company, particularly a purported, preemptive right the other company had, by virtue of the location of its existing sign, to build another sign where Ray proposed to build, even though the other company did not own and had not leased the site Ray applied to build on. They asserted not only that the Department was substantially justified in turning down petitioner's application when it was originally considered, but also that any other similar application should be turned down. In their opinion, the Department erred in issuing permits in both cases in which the question has arisen. They attributed the eventual issuance of permits to petitioner and in the Ad-Con case to misinformed and misguided departmental employees. As authority for this view, Mr. Kissinger, respondent's Motorist Information Services Coordinator, cited Sections 479.07(9)(a) and 479.01(14), Florida Statutes (1989) and Rule 14-10.006(b)(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The outdoor advertising sign which is the subject of this proceeding is situated 30-35 feet from the pavement on the northbound side of U.S. 1, approximately 170 feet north of 69th Street in the City of Marathon, Florida. The sign is visible to traffic on U.S. 1. U.S. 1 is a federal-aid primary highway, and it has been such since the subject sign was erected. This outdoor advertising sign is owned by the Respondent, T. L. Carpenter, who is also the owner of the property upon which the sign sits. The subject sign has not been issued an outdoor advertising sign permit by the Department, nor has any application for a permit been filed with the Department. This sign is less than 1,000 feet from an outdoor advertising sign which was erected on the same side of U.S. 1 by Jerry's Outdoor Advertising in 1983 or 1984. Permits numbered AK711-10 and AK710-10 have been issued by the Department to Jerry's Outdoor Advertising for its sign. The Respondent purchased the property where the subject sign stands in 1977. The sign had been erected by the prior owner, and the Respondent received the subject sign when he took title to the property. Nevertheless, the Respondent has never applied for an outdoor advertising permit for this sign. For some period of time after the Respondent bought this property and the subject sign, the Respondent advertised a health food store by copy on the sign. Presently, this sign advertises a restaurant. The copy, however, does not advertise an on-premise business. Due to the proximity of the permitted sign of Jerry's Outdoor Advertising, the Respondent may not now receive a permit for his sign at its present location.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the sign owned by the Respondent on the northbound side of U.S. 1, approximately 170 feet north of 69th Street in Marathon, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. J. L. Carpenter P. O. Box 2641 Marathon Shores, Florida 33052 Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
