The Issue The issues to be determined are: a) whether Petitioner’s sign for Crestview Paint and Body is located within Department of Transportation’s (“Department” or “Respondent”) right-of-way; and b) whether the sign is entitled to an on-premises exemption from permitting.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation is the state agency responsible for regulating outdoor advertising along interstates and federal-aid primary roads in accordance with chapter 479, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-10, and a 1972 Federal- State Agreement. Petitioner, Crestview Paint and Body, owns and operates an auto body repair shop on 956 West James Lee Boulevard in Crestview, Florida, and has maintained that location since 1988. In 2006, Petitioner bought property at 701 South Ferdon Boulevard in Crestview, Florida, including a pre-existing sign for Jet Muffler and a building with four units. Petitioner opened the business location in 2007, and replaced the Jet Muffler sign with one for Crestview Paint and Body. One of the issues of dispute in this matter is whether Petitioner conducted business at the Ferdon Boulevard location. Mr. Lowe, owner of Crestview Paint and Body, testified that the Ferdon Boulevard location was operated as a concierge service for Crestview Paint and Body. Mr. Lowe maintains a business occupational license for the Ferdon location and the license was effective and valid when Respondent issued the Notice on April 17, 2017. While a tax collector print-out reflected the business was closed, the credible evidence supports that the concierge location maintained a valid business occupation license. Mr. Lowe had business cards made with a photograph of the Ferdon Boulevard location showing Hertz and Crestview Paint and Body, and the words “Collision Concierge and Rental Car Center, 701 S. Ferdon Blvd, Crestview, Florida.” Another card read “2 Locations to Serve You Better” with the addresses for Ferdon Boulevard and James Lee Boulevard. The Crestview Paint and Body sign at issue here was located at the Ferdon Boulevard location. It was erected at the same spot as the predecessor sign that advertised the Jet Muffler business and installed under permit No. 2007-0430. Petitioner complied with all Crestview local ordinances required to erect the sign. As the sign was replacing an established sign, it is not clear if the City of Crestview required a survey of the location prior to installation. The sign has been owned and operated by Crestview Paint and Body in its current location for the past 10 years. Wayne Thompson, an employee of Crestview Paint and Body, testified that he works at the Ferdon location periodically. He meets customers at the location as needed, an average of two times per month. An employee was initially assigned to work full-time at the concierge location, but the position was reduced to part-time, and eventually eliminated. Senida Oglesby, a former customer of Crestview Paint and Body, testified that she received concierge service at the Ferdon Boulevard location. She took her vehicle to the location and it was transferred to the main location for completion of service. However, Ms. Oglesby stated she was last at the business approximately 3 to 4 years ago. Mr. Lowe testified that he completed an inspection of a vehicle at the concierge location on an undetermined date. Respondent asserts that its investigator visited the Ferdon Boulevard location on February 7, 2017; April 17, 2017; and May 15, 2017, and observed no business activity and concluded there was no business being conducted on behalf of Crestview Paint and Body at the location. The credible evidence demonstrates that there was no legitimate business activity being conducted on behalf of Crestview Paint and Body at the Ferdon Boulevard location. Ferdon Boulevard is a federal-aid primary highway subject to Department permitting in accordance with chapter 479. Crestview Paint and Body has never requested or received a permit for the display of outdoor advertising at the Ferdon Boulevard location. In 2015, Crestview Paint and Body leased Bay 101 of the Ferdon Boulevard location to a vape and smoke shop. The header signs positioned above the units numbered 101, 103, and 104 had signs for the vape and smoke shop. There was no header sign above unit 102. Mr. Collins placed a Notice sticker on the Crestview Paint and Body sign located at Ferdon Boulevard. On April 18, 2017, a written copy of the Notice was sent to Crestview Paint and Body at the James Lee Boulevard location. In preparing for the hearing, Billy Benson, a Department outdoor advertising field administrator, discovered that the sign appeared to be partially on the property owned by Crestview Paint and Body and partially on the Department’s right-of-way. The Department’s right-of-way is defined in section 334.03(21), Florida Statutes, as land in which the Department owns the fee or has an easement devoted to or required for use as a transportation facility. At the sign’s location, the right-of-way extended 50 feet to the right and 47 feet to the left of the centerline of Ferdon Boulevard. Mr. Collins again visited the Ferdon Boulevard location along with Sam Rudd. Mr. Collins and Mr. Rudd located survey markers to the north and south of the sign establishing the Department’s right-of-way line extending 10 feet beyond the edge of the sidewalk. The front edge of the sign began at two feet beyond the edge of the sidewalk and the back edge of the sign was 12 feet beyond the sidewalk. A survey conducted by a Department survey crew in November 2017, confirmed that 7.8 feet of the sign was located within the Department’s right-of-way and 2.6 feet of the sign was on Petitioner’s property. On September 20, 2017, the Department issued an Amended Notice of Violation–Illegally Erected Sign, noting that in addition to being an unpermitted sign in violation of section 479.105, the sign was located within the Department’s right-of- way in violation of sections 479.11(8) and 337.407. On September 20, 2017, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for Continuance, based on the recently discovered information and the sudden death of Mr. Lowe’s father. The motion provided: This matter involves an unpermitted sign in Okaloosa County. The department recently surveyed the sign’s location and determined the sign is within the Department’s right of way. Consequently, the department is issuing an amended notice of violation citing section 337.407 and 479.107, Florida Statutes, in addition to the initial reason for the violation based on section 479.105, Florida Statutes. The Department believes it is in the interest of judicial economy to have all charges determined in a single hearing. The Petitioner has indicated additional time will be needed to respond to the notice of violation as amended. Petitioner contends that it objected to the Department’s amendment of the Notice initially filed in this matter. While the Department did not properly file a Motion to Amend its Notice, there was no showing that Respondent was prejudiced by the Department's failure to comply with all requirements of the statute. Assuming arguendo there was prejudice, any prejudice alleged by Petitioner was cured. Petitioner agreed to the continuance, which stated the amendment of the Notice as a basis for the continuance. Further, Petitioner had more than 60 days to conduct discovery regarding the new allegations and had sufficient time to prepare for the hearing.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation enter a final order finding that Petitioner’s sign was erected and maintained on the Department’s right-of-way. Further, the final order should find that Petitioner is not entitled to an exemption for an on-premises sign. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Dixie Dan Powell, Esquire Powell Injury Law, P.A. 602 South Main Street Crestview, Florida 32536 (eServed) Susan Schwartz, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 (eServed) Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Michael J. Dew, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Erik Fenniman, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact 1. Jack L. Foster, an advertising sign inspector for the Department of Transportation, testified that he had inspected a sign 5.50 miles south of Borden on 95 and facing I-95 in Duval County Florida, which sign bore advertising copy advertising the city of St. Augustine which can be read from I- Foster checked with the chamber of commerce of St. Augustine and determined it had leased the sign from Anastasia Advertising Art, Inc. Foster also checked the zoning maps of Duval county at City Hall in Jacksonville, Florida, and learned that the sign was placed in an area zoned "open agricultural". Foster testified that his inspection of the aforestated revealed no permit was attached, and that it was located 25 feet from the right of way line. Foster stated that because of his duties he would have been aware of any application pending for a permit for said sign, and there had been no application filed. On cross examination, Foster stated that he had first observed the sign in 1972, at which time a tag was not required. No other witnesses testified and no other evidence was presented controverting Foster's testimony. The Hearing Officer having not received any further argument from the parties, and having considered the foregoing facts, finds that said sign being 25 feet from the right of way of I-95 violated Subsection 479.11(2), F.S., which states that no outdoor advertising sign shall be constructed, used or maintained: (2) Beyond 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of all portions of the interstate system or the federal-aid primary systems outside of urban areas that is erected with the purpose of its message being read from the main-traveled ways of such system, unless it is of a class or type permitted in subsection 479.111(1) or subsections 479.16(1) or (3)." The Hearing Officer further finds that the failure to affix a permit to said sign violates Subsection 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and further that the Hearing Officer finds that the Department of Transportation has complied with Section 479.08, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer, based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommends to the Agency Head that action be taken to have the subject sign removed with ten (10) days of his Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of March, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether DOT should revoke permits Nos. 721-02 and 722-02 because the nonconforming signs originally permitted have been replaced with a larger structure? Whether DOT is estopped to revoke the permits on these grounds where authorized personnel verbally assured the permittee, and others not in the outdoor advertising business who acted in reliance, that the replacement was not unlawful, and later stated in writing that the permits or one of them was valid?
Findings Of Fact Since 1968 (T.83) "prior to the 1972 agreement with the Feds to control outdoor advertising," (T.23) sign boards in Franklin County facing east and west, on the north side of U.S. Highway 98, a federal-aid primary highway, about 26.85 miles east of the city limits of Apalachicola, have apprised motorists of the proximity of Bill Miller Realty's offices. On October 1, 1987, members of the Saunders family acquired Lanark Plaza, a shopping center near the signpost but invisible from the highway. After learning they would not be allowed to erert a sign within 1,000 feet of Mr. Miller's signs, they proposed a two-faced "directory sign for the shopping center, and" (T.78) Mr. Miller's office, to replace the existing structure. Subject to DOT approval, Mr. Miller agreed to continue paying permit fees if they would erect and maintain the new "directory sign." Before anything was done to effectuate the agreement, Mr. Miller spoke to the late Carlton Millender, "a very blunt man . . . [who] did what was right," (T.99) and who had worked as DOT's outdoor advertising inspector since 1981 for the area around the Carrabelle maintenance yard, including the site at issue. He was authorized to represent DOT on questions concerning the placement of signs and the validity of sign permits, and had turned down more than one sign proposal Saunders family members had made. Mr. Millender told Mr. Miller and, later, Christine Saunders that they could replace the sign that then existed with another, taller sign, but that they could not put up a sign any wider than the eight foot width of the sign faces then standing. "[I]f you are going to increase some height to it, he said, I don't see any objection to it, but I would suggest you write DOT in Chipley and get their blessing or whatever." (T.79-80). Mr. Miller did write DOT's offices in Chipley, to the attention of Milford C. Truette, and told him what [they] wanted to do, and that [he] had talked to the supervisor here, and it was almost getting time for renewing the permit anyhow. . . . [H]e requested that if there [was] any increase in the fee for raising the heigh[t] of the sign, please let [him] know. . . . (T. 80) He received no reply, which he told Mr. Millender. Meanwhile Ms. Saunders "had a man in Panama City draw the design" (T.96) and, toward the end of October or the beginning of November, showed Mr. Millender the completed design, Respondents' exhibit No.3., depicting a sign eight feet wide and about nine feet tall, five feet taller than the sign it was to replace. Mr. Saunders "presented a copy of the plans to Mr. Millender . . . [and they] talked at length about the enlargement of the sign, that it would not be made any wider, but it would be made taller. . . ." (T.101) "When he said that all [they] needed to do was send a letter stating that it was going to be enlarged, requesting a fee change, [she] took that to mean everything was in order," (T.106) and contracted to have the sign built. Eleven hundred dollars or more in materials went into the sign, which ended up being eight feet wide and approximately eleven feet tall. The Saunders worked on it themselves and they hired a laborer at ten dollars an hour. In mid-February of 1988, they took the old sign down and put the new sign up in its place, "within the jurisdiction of the DOT because it's . . . within a certain distance of highway 98." (T. 36) . The sign stands on land owned by Arthur T. Allen, Jr. "on the corner of the . . . second tee" (T. 87) of the Lanark Village Golf Club's golf course. The privately owned club charges fees for use of the course, which lies within an area designated R-1 on detail map B of the Franklin County zoning map, DOT's Exhibit No.3., adopted by reference on June 22, 1981. Nobody signed or sealed the detail map, which was not available for review until the night the County Commission adopted it. Although James T. Floyd, formerly the county planner, testified the detail map was in a sense unreliable and inaccurate, "it is the only document available" (T.72) to show existing zoning. According to the map, not only the shopping center, which "has been commercial since the 1940's, really" (T.72) but the pumping station, as well, lie within the R-1 residential zone. The parties stipulated that the future land use map filed and adopted with Franklin County's comprehensive plan in 1981 designated the area "low density residential." (T.76) On March 2, 1988, DOT's Mr. Truette visited the sign. At some point, Mr. Truette had spoken to a Mr. Kubicki, who was concerned about the legality of the new structure. After the site visit, on March 10, 1988, with knowledge of the new sign's size, and that the new structure was taller than the old, having been informed of the zoning in the area, and fully aware of the controversy surrrounding the sign, Mr. Truette wrote Mr. Floyd, then still in Franklin County's employ: "This is to inform you that state sign permit number 721-01 is a valid permit." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. At hearing, Mr. Truette said he had meant only that the permit had not yet been revoked. It was he who signed the notice of violation on June 3, 1988.
Recommendation In accordance with the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That DOT dismiss the notice of violation, and take no action against permits Nos. 721-02 and 722-02. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, and 3 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, except that Truette's meeting with Floyd was not the first contact he had with anybody about the sign. Whether or not the record established the month of Mr. Millender's death, the parties agree that he died in January. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 27 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 1, it was not clear just which members of the Saunders family owned what. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 12, while no money is to be paid Mr. Miller, he is to receive consideration in the form of upkeep. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 21, they spent approximately $1100 plus whatever they paid the laborer. Respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 26 has been rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 John F. Gilroy, Esquire Bruce Culpepper, Esquire Haben and Culpepper, P.A. Post Office Box 10096 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact By Advertising Sign Permit dated March 4, 1985 (Exhibit 3), Clear Vu Media was authorized to locate a sign with both east and west facing boards on State Road 52, 2- 1/2 miles east of Plaza Drive (Little Road). The permit was issued by Linda K. Brown, outdoor advertising inspector for DOT. Prior to issuing the permit Brown visited the proposed site and approved the location as meeting the requirements for an outdoor advertising sign. Subsequent to the erection of the sign Brown inspected the sign and found the sign to be located on a site other than the approved site. The existing structure is located 890 feet from another existing and permitted sign. The approved site is located at least 1,000 feet from this existing sign and from any other permitted sign along State Road 52. State Road 52 is a federal-aid primary highway. A Notice of Hearing was sent to Clear Vu Media, Post Office Box 2038, New Port Richey, Florida 33552, by U.S. Mail and was not returned as undelivered.
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 The issue in these causes is whether denial of Petitioners' outdoor advertising sign site permit applications by Respondent were correctly determined under Subsection 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (2003), on the basis that the sign sites were unzoned commercial/industrial areas; and on the basis that within attending factual circumstances, the sign site did not qualify as unzoned commercial/industrial areas as defined in Subsection 479.01(23), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying; documentary materials received in evidence; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003); and the entire record of this proceeding, the following relevant and material findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Tropical Landholdings, a Florida Corporation, was created in 1998 and purchased approximately 700 to 800 acres of land comprised of residential multi-family and commercial properties along Interstate 75 (I-75) in Punta Gorda, Florida. On September 8, 2003, Petitioner, Crown Advertising, Inc., of Belleview, Florida, submitted three outdoor advertising sign site permit applications to the Department for review. On September 23, 2003, the Department denied the three outdoor advertising sign site permit applications for the following reasons: (1) the sign sites were not permitted under the local land use designation of site (§ 479.111(2), Fla. Stat. (2003)); and (2) the sign sites did not qualify as unzoned commercial/industrial area. § 479.01, Fla. Stat. (2003). The sign site permit application forms used by Petitioners in these causes were composed and authorized by the Department. The form required the applicant to obtain and provide information regarding the proposed sign site, what is proposed to be constructed on the site, and where the proposed construction is to occur. The sign site permit applications also required the applicant to secure information from the appropriate local zoning official of the future land use designation and the current zoning of the proposed sites enacted by the local government's Comprehensive Plan and land use development regulations. This form required information from the local government as to whether the applicant is or is not in compliance with all adopted local ordinances. Permission to erect an outdoor sign structure on the identified sign site is subject to approval by the City. Petitioners complied with the requested information. The local government, the City of North Port, approved the three sign site permit applications in question and granted Petitioners permission to erect three outdoor billboard signs. This local grant of approval was then subjected to concurring approval by the Department. After receiving the sign site permits that were approved by the City, the Department engaged the services of a consultant to conduct on-site review and identification of: (1) the local government's designation for each proposed sign site; (2) the permitted uses of each proposed sign site (local drainage facilities, pipeline corridors, underground communication cables, electric transmission lines, and outdoor advertising signs); and (3) a review of adjacent and surrounding parcels. The consultant reported to the Department the factual circumstances attendant the three locally approved sign sites. It should be noted that the consultant did not render an opinion regarding the Department's approval or denial of the sign site permit applications. The sign sites in question were zoned under the local "land use designation" of the City of North Port's Ordinance 02-46, Section 53.146 (Ordinance 02-46), as a "utility industrial corridor." The zoned land was composed of strips of land measuring 25 to 70 feet in width on the west side and 160 to 170 feet in width on the east side. The "permitted governmental uses" of a parcel zoned as a "utility industrial corridor," included such uses as underground communication cables, electric transmission lines, and outdoor advertising signs. Ordinance 02-46, under the title "Prohibited Uses and Structures," specifically prohibits "all commercial and industrial uses." Based upon a review of all information provided by Petitioners, the local government, and its consultant, the Department first determined the three sign sites on which the subject signs were to be erected and located, prohibited commercial or industrial uses. The Department then determined, based upon an analysis of the materials provided by its consultant and the City of North Port, the three sign sites in question had not been zoned for commercial or industrial uses as a part of the local government's comprehensive zoning plan. Based upon (1) the prohibition of commercial or industrial uses and (2) no commercial or industrial zoning of the sign sites, the Department concluded these three sign sites were zoned "primarily to permit outdoor advertising," a prohibited function. The denials were required. Under the local land use designation of Ordinance 02-46, the City of North Port's permitted uses included local drainage facilities and a pipeline corridor. Under governmental uses designation of Ordinance 02-46, the City of North Port's permitted uses included underground communication cables, electric transmission lines, and outdoor advertising. However, Ordinance 02-46 specifically prohibits all commercial and industrial uses under the governmental uses designation. When questioned by Petitioners, Ms. Holschuh testified "that the Department's intent was to allow [sign] permits whenever possible and never prohibit the installation of billboards." From this specific statement of testimony, Petitioners argued that "implementing the intent the Department must look beyond the labels of the zoning and look at the actual primary uses allowed under those designations." (Emphasis added.) Ms. Holschuh disagreed with Petitioners' characterization of the Department's procedures and convincingly maintained that the Department based its denials on "sign site zoning" and factors considered for determining an "unzoned commercial/industrial area" as defined by statute. Continuing with its argument, Petitioners conclude "[T]he department . . . appears to be in conflict with Judge Barbara Staros' decision of February 16, 2004, in a rule challenge proceeding, where she analyzed the Sign Permit procedure under Section 479.07, Florida Statutes." In her Final Order, Administrative Law Judge Barbara Staros made a Finding of Fact in paragraph 30, stating: Once the local government zoning official certifies that the proposed sign identified in the application is in compliance with the comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, the Department does not go behind that certification to look factually at whether the zoning action was consistent with the comprehensive plan. Page 13. The procedures followed by the Department in this proceeding complied with Judge Staros Finding of Fact in paragraph 31, where she wrote: The Department uses the application and the information contained therein to determine whether a proposed sign location falls within the definition of a "commercial or industrial zone." If it does, [fall within] then the Department determines whether those designations were adopted as part of the local government's comprehensive planning efforts or were "primarily" adopted to permit outdoor advertising signs on that location. Page 30. Based upon it's receipt, review, and analysis of the specific facts provided by all parties of interest, the Department determined the sites where the signs were to be erected prohibited commercial or industrial use. The Department factually determined that no local zoning identified the sites as commercial or industrial. The Department concluded correctly and in accord with Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0052 that these three sign sites were zoned by the City of North Port, the local governmental entity, "primarily to permit outdoor advertising" contrary to sign site permit procedures under Section 479.07, Florida Statutes (2003). Based upon the evidence of record and considering the size of the sign site, the local government's zoning of the site, designated uses of the site, and prohibited uses on the site, denial of the sign applications was correctly determined pursuant to Subsection 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0052. Based on the testimonies of Ms. Holschuh and James Duff, who testified regarding his ownership, property taxes paid, and the investors' inability to use the property in question to their economic advantage, Petitioners failed to carry the burden of producing a preponderance of credible evidence to establish that the Department incorrectly and/or wrongfully denied Petitioners' applications for three sign site permits pursuant to Subsection 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0052.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's outdoor advertising sign permit applications should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the parties' Prehearing Stipulation (which contains a "Statement of Admitted Facts"),1 and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner's Signs On or after July 21, 1998, Petitioner filed outdoor advertising sign permit applications for two signs2 (Petitioner's Signs) located on property it owns on the west side of Interstate 95 (I-95) within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of I-95, one-half mile south of Northlake Boulevard, and north of Blue Heron Boulevard, in Palm Beach County, Florida. This area of I-95 has been a part of the interstate highway system since at least August of 1967. Palm Beach County is the local governmental entity with authority to adopt a comprehensive land use designation for the property on which Petitioner's Signs are located (Property). From the time the Signs were erected in 1987, through the present, the Property (on which Petitioner conducts no business activities) has been zoned or designated for residential, not predominantly commercial or industrial, use. Petitioner's Signs, each of which exceeds eight square feet in area, contain advertising messages for Petitioner. The messages can be read without visual aid by motorists of normal acuity traveling on I-95. Previously, the Signs indicated the Property was for sale, but they have not been used for such purpose since December 14, 1994. The Department denied Petitioner's permit applications because the Signs are located in an "unpermittable land use designation" inasmuch as the Property is designated for residential, not predominately commercial or industrial, use. Other Signs Subsequent to December 8, 1971, the effective date of Chapter 71-971, Laws of Florida,3 the Department has issued and/or renewed outdoor advertising sign permits for other signs located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the interstate or federal-aid primary highway system, notwithstanding these signs' location in areas not designated primarily for commercial or industrial use. Signs Assigned Permit Numbers AZ346-35, AZ347-35, AY935-35, AY936-35, AY937-35, and AY938-35. Among these signs are six signs (three sign structures with two facings each) that, like Petitioner's Signs, are located on the west side of I-95, south of Northlake Boulevard and north of Blue Heron Boulevard, in an area designated for residential, not predominantly commercial or industrial, use. The Department has annually renewed the sign permits for these signs since at least 1973. The 1974 annual permit renewals are the earliest records the Department has for these signs. (The Department has neither an original, nor a copy of, the initial applications or the initial permits, for these signs.) The signs currently have the following permit numbers: AZ346-35, AZ347-35, AY935-35, AY936-35, AY937-35, and AY938-35. According to Palm Beach County Building records, these signs were all constructed before January 27, 1972, and four of the signs were constructed in the late 1960's (in or sometime after July of 1968). These signs are in the same location as when originally permitted, and that location has been zoned or designated for residential use since before the time the signs were constructed and permitted. Signs Assigned Permit Numbers AN661-35 and BG910-35 Two signs (one sign structure with two facings) located within 660 feet of the westerly right-of-way of I-95, south of Forest Hill Boulevard and north or Seventeenth Avenue North, in Palm Beach County, Florida, were permitted by the Department in August of 1984. This area of I-95 has been a part of the interstate highway system since at least April of 1976. The two signs were erected after August of 1984. They currently are assigned permit numbers AN661-35 and BG910-35. The initial outdoor advertising sign permit applications that were filed with the Department for these signs (in August of 1984), unlike the applications submitted by Petitioner in the instant case, indicated that the signs were to be located in an area that was "commercial or industrial zoned." On each application, the applicant "certif[ied] that the statements made and the information given in this application [were] true and correct." In accordance with the Department's standard operating procedure, a review of these applications was conducted by Department staff and the information contained therein, including that relating to the zoning of the area in which the signs were to be located, was determined to be accurate. Accordingly, the permits were issued. Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing in this case, it appears that, contrary to the determination made by the Department, the zoning information provided by the applicant was inaccurate inasmuch as the area in which the signs were to be located was actually (and still is) an unzoned residential area. Signs Assigned Permit Numbers AX549 and AX550 State Road 80 in Section 35, Township 43 South, Range 40 East, in Palm Beach County, Florida, has been part of the federal-aid primary system since at least January of 1973. There are two signs (one sign structure with two facings) that are located within 660 feet of the right-of-way of State Road 80 in Section 35, Township 43 South, Range 40 East, in Palm Beach County, Florida, in an area not designated for predominately commercial or industrial use (State Road 80 Signs). These signs currently are assigned permit numbers AX549 and AX550. The Department issued sign permits for the predecessors of the State Road 80 Signs (Predecessor Signs) on April 15, 1979. An examination of the initial outdoor advertising sign permit applications filed with the Department (in April of 1979) for the Predecessor Signs reveals that each application has the entry "8/67" in the space for showing the "date [the sign is] to be erected,"4 and has the handwritten notation, "grandfathered," on that portion of the application to be filled out by the Department. The Department uses the term "grandfathered" to refer to signs which existed legally prior to a change in the law rendering them nonconforming, but which, notwithstanding such change, are still treated as lawful (albeit nonconforming) signs. The Department has a policy of permitting or "grandfathering" signs that existed (in compliance with the then- existing law) prior to the effective date of the aforementioned January 27, 1972, agreement between the State of Florida and the United States Department of Transportation (which is referenced in Section 479.111(2), Florida Statutes), provided no changes are made to the signs. The State Road 80 Signs are in the same general location (but not the identical location) where the Predecessor Signs were located, and all of the property in that general location is now, and has been since before the Predecessor Signs were permitted, zoned or designated for some use other than commercial or industrial. In 1986, the property on which the Predecessor Signs were located was acquired (for $42,000.00, excluding attorney's fees and costs) by the Department as a result of a settlement reached by the Department and the property owner in an eminent domain proceeding. In recommending (in writing) that the Department settle the matter, the Department's trial attorney stated the following with respect to the Predecessor Signs: The settlement figure of $42,000.00 dollars is a reasonable Award in light of the real estate and severance damages. Due to the specific difficulties involved in this matter, for instance the importance of a particular type of advertising sign combined with the fact that this advertising sign was grandfathered in and since the sign has been put up, restrictions had occurred in Palm Beach County which would have prevented a similar sign from being put up. Accordingly all parties had to work within the constraints of the original sign location with slight adjustment and renovation in order to make effectively a new sign into a renovated sign for purposes of seeking whatever variance. As the trial attorney had suggested in his written recommendation, the Predecessor Signs, with the Department's approval, had been removed from their original location and reconstructed (in or about June of 1986) on a part of the property that was not subject to the eminent domain proceeding. Signs Along the Florida Turnpike State Road 91 (the Florida Turnpike) in Palm Beach County, Florida, was designated as a part of the National Highway System by the United States Congress on November 28, 1995. It thereupon was deemed by the Department to be a part of the federal-aid primary highway system in the state. Before November 28, 1995, starting at least as early as 1973, the Department had issued at least 95 sign permits for signs located in Palm Beach County, which were within 660 feet of the Florida Turnpike right-of-way and not located in areas zoned or designated for commercial or industrial use at the time the permits were issued. Many, or all, of these signs are still in areas not zoned or designated for commercial or industrial use. With the concurrence of the Federal Highway Administration, the Department did not require signs along the Florida Turnpike to meet the requirements applicable to signs located along federal-aid primary highway system roadways, provided a permit application for these signs was received by the Department prior to July 1, 1996. A sign located within 660 feet of the edge of the westerly right-of-way of the Florida Turnpike, south of Forest Hill Boulevard and north of Lake Worth Road (State Road 802), in Palm Beach County, Florida, was issued outdoor advertising sign permit number BM818 by the Department on May 28, 1996. The application for this permit had been received by the Department on May 8, 1996. At the time of the issuance of the permit, the sign was located in an area not zoned or designated for commercial or industrial use. The sign is presently in the same location, which continues to be not zoned or designated for commercial or industrial use.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying Petitioner's applications for outdoor advertising sign permits for his Signs. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1999, 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 12th day of May, 1999.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's applications to erect a steel monopole which would support a two- sided outdoor advertising sign to be located west of Interstate Highway 95 (I-95), 2,244 feet north of I-95's intersection with Indrio Road, St. Lucie County, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters Petitioner POZ Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (POZ), is a corporation engaged in the business of erecting and maintaining outdoor advertising signs. The principals of POZ are Richard Pozniak and his wife, Barbara. Respondent, Department of Transportation (Department) is a state agency charged with, inter alia, the responsibility to regulate outdoor advertising, under the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code. On February 17, 1997, POZ applied with the Department for permits to erect a monopole sign which would support a two- sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 2,244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road, St. Lucie County, Florida. The Department reviewed the applications, and on February 20, 1997, gave notice to POZ that the applications were denied because the "[s]ite is within 500 feet of a restricted interchange or intersection at grade (S. #14-10.006(1)(b)5, FAC)." POZ filed a timely request for a formal hearing to challenge the Department's decision, and these proceedings duly followed. Matters at issue POZ did not contend, and indeed offered no proof at hearing to demonstrate, that the proposed site was not, as found by the Department, within 500 feet of a restricted interchange or intersection at grade, as proscribed by Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code.2 Rather, as noted in the preliminary statement, POZ contends the Department should be precluded from applying the Rule's spacing provisions as a basis for denial of the requested permits based on a theory of estoppel or a theory of inconsistent application of the Rule's spacing requirements. POZ's estoppel theory To accept POZ's estoppel theory, one must accept, as offered, Mr. Pozniak's version of events which he avers transpired in 1990, when he conducted his outdoor advertising business through AdCon Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (AdCon).3 According to Mr. Pozniak, in 1990 he met with Vana Kinchen, then a sign inspector with the Department, to establish the proper location of a billboard that AdCon proposed to permit. Again, according to Mr. Pozniak, Ms. Kinchen helped him measure the site, and identified the same location at issue in this proceeding (2244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road) as an appropriate placement for a billboard. Following Ms. Kinchen's advice as to location, Mr. Pozniak avers that he applied for permits on behalf of AdCon to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located at the exact same site that is at issue in this proceeding. Those applications, according to Mr. Pozniak, were approved and Department tags issued; however, the sign was not erected within 270 days after the permit issued, as required by Section 479.05(3)(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and the permits became void. Having carefully considered the proof in this case, it must be concluded that Mr. Pozniak's version of the events surrounding AdCon's permitting activities in 1990 is less than credible. Rather, the persuasive proof demonstrates that AdCon's application for permits to erect a billboard at the site at issue in this proceeding were denied and it is most unlikely that Ms. Kinchen ever advised Mr. Pozniak that such site was a proper location for a billboard. Regarding AdCon's permitting activities in 1990, the proof demonstrates that on April 6, 1990, AdCon filed applications (inexplicably dated May 6, 1990) with the Department to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 3050 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road. Consistent with the requirement of Section 479.04(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the applications included a separate statement from the local government that the proposed signs complied with local government requirements. Those applications were approved and, on May 3, 1990, the Department's tag numbers BB-457-35 (for the north facing sign) and BB-458-35 (for the south facing sign) were issued. Subsequently, on November 9, 1990, AdCo filed applications dated November 7, 1990, with the Department to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 2,244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road (the location at issue in this case). Those applications were rejected by the Department on November 15, 1990, because they violated the spacing requirements of Section 479.07(9)(a)1, Florida Statutes, which prohibits the issuance of a permit unless the sign is located at least 1,500 feet from any other sign on the same side of an interstate highway. Notably, as the Department observed at that time, those applications conflicted with the previously approved applications of AdCon for the site located at 3,050 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road, and the permittee still had until January 28, 1991, to erect those signs. The applications were also rejected by the Department because they failed to include a statement from local government as required by Section 479.04(3)(b), Florida Statutes, that the proposed signs complied with local government requirements. Rather, what AdCon submitted was a copy of the local government approval it had secured for the location permitted by the Department on May 3, 1990. That documentation did not, as AdCon knew or should have known, meet the requirements for the new location. Clearly, the Department did not previously permit the site at issue in this case, and it is most unlikely that Ms. Kinchen ever affirmatively advised Mr. Pozniak as to the suitability of the site. In so concluding, Mr. Pozniak's testimony, as well as Petitioner's Exhibit 3 (what purports to be copies of applications, dated November 7, 1990, by AdCon for the site at issue in this proceeding, and purportedly approved by the Department) have been carefully considered. However, when compared with the other proof of record it must be concluded that Petitioner's Exhibit 3 is a fabrication,4 and that Mr. Pozniak's testimony on the subject is not credible or worthy of belief. POZ's theory of inconsistency Mr. Pozniak offered testimony at hearing concerning two outdoor advertising signs at the intersection of I-95 and State Road 60 which he opined did not conform with the Department's spacing requirements and, therefore, represent inconsistent application of the District's rule. The persuasive proof is, however, to the contrary. The first sign, located within 500 feet of the interchange, was in existence when the Department's "ramp rule" regarding spacing requirements became effective and, accordingly, its presence was grandfathered. However, at some time following the enactment of the ramp rule, the owner replaced the sign. At that time, the sign became nonconforming and the Department, as soon as it became aware of the nonconformity, commenced an action to secure the sign's removal. The other sign alluded to by Mr. Pozniak, and identified in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1, is owned by Division Street, Inc., and, contrary to Mr. Pozniak's testimony, that sign complies with the Department's spacing requirements and was properly permitted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the subject applications for outdoor advertising sign permits. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 17th day of December, 1997.
