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 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On May 16, 1983 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 3.5 miles west of S.R. 81 in Walton 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 that he would find a nursery business there. He found a small building with dimensions of approximately 8-10 feet wide, 10-12 feet long, and 7-8 feet high. He observed some plants both inside and outside this building. These plants did not appear to have been grown there. Nearby was a brick residence, a shed and more plants near the shed. After talking with a lady on the premises, he determined that she was in the business of selling plants. From I-10 the brick residence building could be seen, but the plants were not visible and it could not be determined from the interstate what activity there was inside the building or at this location. Based upon his inspection of the site, coupled with the Respondent's representation that a nursery business existed there, the inspector approved the Respondent's application for a sign permit. The permit was issued on or about June 8, 1983 because of the proximity of the proposed site to a nearby commercial activity which was the nursery business observed by the inspector. Subsequently, after the permit had been issued, the Respondent erected its sign which is the subject of this proceeding. In March of 1985 there was no business activity at the subject site. There were no longer any flowers or plants situated at this location. The terrain slopes upward from the interstate at the site of the Respondent's sign, so that nothing was visible from the interstate that would indicate any commercial activity was being conducted at this location, either at the time when the permit was issued or presently. 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 AJ353-10 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 F. 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
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 outdoor advertising signs of Respondent are in violation of Florida Statute 479.07(1), sign being erected without a State permit. Whether the subject signs are in violation of the setback requirements of Section 479.11, Florida Statutes. Whether subject signs are new and different signs inasmuch as they have new copy, are materially elevated from the location of the previous signs and have catwalks and lights added, thus requiring a new application and permit. Whether subject signs are in violation of federal and State laws, rules and regulations and should be removed. Whether the federal regulations adopted in Section 479.02, F.S., would have to be adopted as a rule under Chapter 120, F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent sign company has a sign located approximately 12.81 miles north of Dunn Avenue on the east side of I-95 facing south containing the following copy: "Ramada Inn Exit 7 Miles U.S. 17" The sign was increased in height from under ten (10) feet to twenty feet from the ground to the bottom of the sign, lights were added, and the catwalk was added to accommodate the change in advertisers. This extensive alteration was done in June of 1975 and copy was changed. The original sign was erected in May of 1968 and advertised "Shell Oil." Respondent sign company has a sign located approximately 8.81 miles south of Bowden Road on the west side of I-95 facing north and containing the following copy: "Family Inn of St. Augustine" The revised sign is located in an area zoned open rural, has been elevated and has had lights and catwalk added. The original sign had different copy and was erected and permitted in October of 1968. Permits had been issued for the two subject signs in the approximate location with different copy on them in October of 1968 or shortly thereafter. The new advertisers wanted the signs lighted and pay approximately $30 more per month for the lighted signs. The new signs now are much more visible. Both signs were elevated approximately ten (10) feet, new copy put on them and lights and catwalks added in April of 1976. Permits were applied for but the Petitioner Department of Transportation refused to issue permits stating that they were new signs, no new applications had been made and were obviously ineligible for permits inasmuch as the signs violated the setback requirements of Chapter 479 and the federal laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the Florida Legislature.
Recommendation Remove subject signs if said signs have not been removed by the owner within ten (10) days after entry of the final order herein, as no applications for permits were made or granted. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of December, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 W. D. Rowland, Esquire Post Office Box 539 Winter Park , Florida 32789 George E. Hollis Branch Manager National Advertising Company Post Office Box 23208 Tampa, Florida 33622 Mr. Frank Whitesell Post Office Box 1089 Lake City, Florida 32055 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
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.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 16, 1982, the Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc., filed applications for two permits to erect an outdoor advertising sign in Escambia County, Florida on the west side of I-110, .95 mile north of SR 296. This sign would have one face for northbound traffic and one face for southbound traffic, and would be located outside the city limits of Pensacola. These applications were field inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, and they were approved by the Department's district supervisor in Chipley. On or about September 20, 1982, the Department issued permits for the requested location to the Respondent. On these applications the Respondent designated that the proposed sign location was in an unzoned commercial area within 800 feet of a business. These applications also certified that the sign to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. A sketch attached to the applications showed that the proposed sign location would be adjacent to a business that was designated as Coleman Roofing. When the field inspector visited the site she was aware that an antique business was supposed to be located in the area because it was designated on another outdoor advertising company's application as a business that qualified another sign location as unzoned commercial. This inspector found Hazel's Antiques because there was a sign which said "antiques" and a nearby shed which was visible from the interstate. In continuing to look for Coleman Roofing, she walked up the embankment between I-110 and the subject location until she could see what she determined to be some roofing material stored at one end of the property. She approved the Respondent's applications more on the proximity of the antique business than on the basis of Coleman Roofing. The owner of the property where the antique business was supposed to be is not in the antique business and has never conducted any business activities from this property. She lives there in a mobile home, and no one else has ever been in business on her property. Another outdoor advertising company obtained her permission to place a sign on her property saying "antiques", and there are some antiques in her mother's home, but these are not for sale. A representative from this sign company also took out a county occupational license in the name of this property owner, but she did not apply for this license. The shed seen by the Department's inspector is used for cookouts, and while there is some old furniture outside, it is junk waiting to be carried away. The owner of the property where Coleman Roofing was supposed to be is a self-employed roofer operating out of a trailer in which he lives. He has also worked from his home as a carpenter. He has no business telephone in his home, only a residential listing, and he only does bookkeeping from the dining room of his home. Outside there is a shed where he has kept his boat and an outbuilding with junk and old furniture in it. When he is working on roofing jobs he orders roofing material delivered to the job site. His property is in a residential area, and any leftover roofing material that may be there is awaiting a trip to the dump. As viewed from I-110, there is no indication that any commercial activity is being conducted at the subject location. The nature of the area within 660 feet of the interstate right of-way and within 800 feet of the Respondent's sign is residential. Sometime prior to November of 1984, the site was inspected by the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator who determined that the permits had been issued in error because of the absence of visible commercial activity within 800 feet of the signs. As a result, the Department issued its notice of violation advising the Respondent that the subject sign permits were being revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit numbers AH820-10 and AH821-10, held by the Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc., authorizing a sign on the west side of I-110, .95 mile north of SR 295, in Escambia County, Florida, be revoked, and the subject sign removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 12th day of September, 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 12th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mark J. Proctor, Esquire P. O. Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns the sign located on the west side of and adjacent to U.S. Highway 331, approximately 5.5 miles north of the intersection of U.S. Highway 331 and U.S. Highway 90 in Walton County, Florida. The sign advertises a motel owned by Petitioner. The sign is important to the motel's business. The sign is required to have an outdoor advertising sign permit. U.S. Highway 331 is a Federal Aid Primary Highway and was a Federal Aid Primary Highway prior to the sign's erection. Walton County is operating under a duly adopted comprehensive plan. However, the State of Florida has not fully approved such plan and Walton County has not yet entered into a compliance agreement with the State in regards to its comprehensive plan. Pursuant to its comprehensive plan, Walton County utilizes a method of zoning known as "performance zoning", as opposed to the traditional "euclidian zoning". Performance zoning has specific regulations and restrictions for each type of use, and each type of use has to meet certain criteria. In essence, performance zoning allows mixed uses of certain zones within the county. Different areas of the county have different requirements regarding the development of such use in order to safeguard the integrity of the zoning plan. The specific area where the sign is located allows for commercial, industrial and residential use and is permitted by the zoning scheme of Walton County. In a general sense, residential as well as commercial and industrial use is allowed in all of the areas of Walton County north of U.S. Highway 90. This area constitutes approximately one-half of the county. However, zones contained within the areas of Walton County north of U.S. Highway 90 may differ in the circumstances and criteria of the zoning plan under which such uses would be permitted. Even though Walton County was comprehensively zoned, Respondent's previous administration treated Walton County as if it did not have zoning. Therefore, Respondent would have previously permitted the sign in question. However Respondent changed its treatment of Walton County because it had been cited by the Federal Highway Administration for its lax interpretation of zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas within the counties. The Federal Highway Administration threatened to withdraw federal highway monies if the Department did not begin to follow the language in its statutes and rules defining zoned and unzoned areas. The clear language of the Respondent's statutes and rules governing the permitting of outdoor advertising signs, as well as the threatened action of the Federal Highway Administration demonstrate the reasonableness of and the factual basis for the Department's change in its interpretation of zoned and unzoned areas within a county. In this case, it is clear that the sign is located in a zoned area and not in an unzoned area. The area in which the sign is located is not zoned commercial or industrial. The area is zoned for mixed use according to the performance zoning utilized by Walton County. Since the sign is not in an area zoned commercial or industrial, the sign is not permittable under Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for a permit to maintain a sign located on the west side of U.S. Highway 331, approximately 5.5 miles north of the intersection of U.S. Highway 331 and U.S. Highway 90 in Walton County, Florida, be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 5th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 12 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order were not shown by the evidence. The fact contained in paragraph 11 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order are immaterial. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 13 and 14 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended order are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: William K. Jennings 119 E. Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
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 Respondent owns a sign within 660 feet of the I-4 erected alongside SR 424A (Fairbanks Avenue) outside the corporate limits of Orlando or Winter Park, Florida, on the east side of I-4, an interstate highway. The sign is visible from the I-4 and the face of the sign is nearly parallel to the I-4. The sign is located within the interchange of the I-4, i.e., it is located within two lines running easterly and perpendicular to the commencement of the off ramp and end of the on ramp of the I-4 at the Fairbanks Avenue intersection. The I-4, which is considered to be an east-west highway, runs in a northwesterly-southeasterly direction where it crosses over Fairbanks Avenue, which runs generally east and west at this point. Respondent's sign is located in the vicinity (within 200 to 500 feet) of several signs erected by Peterson Advertising Company before 1971 and which are now permitted as nonconforming signs. These signs are erected along the curve of the eastbound (which at this location moves in a northwesterly direction) off ramp and are at varying angles with the I-4, but all can be seen from the I-4. Respondent's sign can be seen by both east and westbound traffic on the I-4; however, it is closer to the eastbound lane of traffic. Before the construction of this sign was completed, Respondent was advised the sign would not be permitted because it was within 1,000 feet of another sign on the same side of the I-4 facing in the same direction and within 500 feet of the interchange.
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
