The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a permit for an outdoor advertising sign should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Poz Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (Poz), filed an application dated June 19, 1996, with the Department of Transportation (Department) for an outdoor advertising sign permit. The application stated that the sign was to be located at I-95 approximately 2500 feet north of Midway Road in St. Lucie County, Florida. Additionally the application provided that the sign would not be located within city limits. The Department issued a Notice of Denied Application to Poz on July 16, 1996, stating the application was not approved because the “site is within 500 feet of a restricted interchange or intersection at grade," citing Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code. The Department uniformly interprets Rule 14- 10.006(1)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code. In the mid-80’s, the Department's central office sent out a diagram and instruction memo to all district staff explaining the measurement and distance requirements in Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)5. Based on the methodology used by the Department for measuring compliance with Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)5, the site of the sign proposed by Poz is within 500 feet of a restricted interchange. The area where I-95 crosses or intersects with Midway Road is called an interchange. Petitioner claims that the Department has approved other signs which are within 500 feet of a restricted interchange, namely, signs with permit numbers BM 097 and BM 096, located at the east side of I-95 and State Road 514; signs with permit numbers BM 819 and BM 820 located at the west side of I-95 and State Road 516; and signs with permit numbers BM 825 and BM 826 located at the west side of I-95 and State Road 514. The signs with permit numbers BM 096 and BM 097 are located within the city limits of Palm Bay according to the approved applications for those signs. According to the information contained in the Department’s computerized outdoor advertising location information, the signs with permit numbers BM 825 AND BM 826 are located within city limits. According to the information contained in the Department’s computerized outdoor advertising location information, the signs with permit numbers BM 819 and BM 820, are located within city limits. Petitioner also claims that the sign located at the interchange of I-95 and State Road 60 was within 500 feet of a restricted interchange. This sign is located in an unincorporated area of Indian River County. A sign was erected in this location in 1973 and was replaced with another sign at the same location in 1991. The county building permit for the restructured sign was issued conditioned upon the applicant receiving approval from the “State of Florida Right of Way Administration.” No evidence was presented to show that such approval was sought from or given by the Department. No evidence was presented to establish that the Department was aware that the sign had been restructured. Richard Pozniak, the husband of one of the owners of Poz, testified that a former sign inspector for the Department, Vanna Kinchen, had showed him how to measure for proposed sign sites. Ms. Kinchen rode out with Mr. Pozniak to a location about five miles from the interchange at issue and taught Mr. Pozniak how to measure from the interchange. Ms. Kinchen was not involved with the site at issue and was no longer a sign inspector at the time that Poz made the application for a permit of the site at issue. All interchanges are not constructed alike. Richard Pozniak and his wife, Barbara, measured the site which is at issue. Mr. Pozniak computed the distance from the interchange to the site by measuring 500 feet from the safety zone or gore area on I-95. The gore area is located on the inside of an entrance or exit ramp rather than along the outside of the widening of the pavement. In determining whether the site is within 500 feet of the interchange, the Department measures 500 feet beyond the widening of the entrance ramp onto I-95. The site proposed by Poz was located in the area before the widening of the ramp ends. A sign cannot be placed in the area. The logo program is a federally funded program. The requirements for the issuance of an outdoor advertising permit is different from the requirements for a business to display its logo in the logo program. In the logo program, the business is limited to displaying its logo on a Department sign structure located on the interstate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner, Poz Outdoor Advertising, Inc.’s application for a permit for an outdoor sign at I-95 and Midway Road in St. Lucie County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of May, 1997. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Pennington, Culpepper, Moore, Wilkinson Dunbar & Dunlap, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 34399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Attn: Diedre Grubbs, M.S. 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the stipulations of fact entered into by the parties and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The two signs and four sign faces (hereinafter, the signs) which are the subject of these proceedings are owned by the Respondent and are outdoor advertising signs as defined in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. One sign is located on U.S. 1, 1.35 miles north of Industrial Road, Big Pine Key (DOAH Case Numbers 86-2294T and 86- 2295T) and the other sign is located on U.S. 1, 1.25 miles north of Industrial Road, Big Pine Key (DOAH Case Numbers 86-2296T and 86-2297T) The Respondent purchased the signs from the Daley Outdoor Advertising Company in 1984. The signs are adjacent to and visible from U.S. 1 in Monroe County. U.S. 1 or State Road 5, is a federal-aid primary highway. U.S. 1 was open for public use at the time the notices of violation were placed on the signs. All of the signs are located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of U.S. 1, State Road 5. The area in which the signs are located is zoned "GU". Mr. William Kenney is employed as the outdoor advertising administrator for the Department of Transportation, District VI. On May 29, 1986, Mr. Kenney inspected the signs and noticed that neither of the signs had a state outdoor advertising permit tag attached. At that time, Kenney placed a notice of violation on each sign face. After placing the notice of violation stickers on the signs, Kenney examined the Department of Transportation's office records pertaining to outdoor advertising signs and found no evidence of permit tags having ever been issued for the signs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued declaring that the signs involved in these cases are illegal and must be immediately removed. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of January, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 14th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Charles C. Papy, III, Esquire 201 Alhambra Circle Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Transportation's Notice of Denied Application for an outdoor advertising permit at State Road 61 (U.S. 319), 168 feet west of Thomasville Road, Leon County, issued to Lamar of Tallahassee on May 30, 2008, should be upheld pursuant to Section 479.07, Florida Statutes,1/ or whether the sign should be permitted as a nonconforming sign as defined by Section 479.01(14), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state agency empowered to regulate outdoor advertising signs along the interstate and federal-aid primary highway systems of Florida pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Lamar is licensed to engage in the business of outdoor advertising within the state of Florida pursuant to Section 479.04, Florida Statutes. Lamar owns a V-shaped sign located on certain real property at 1940 Thomasville Road in Tallahassee. Thomasville Road is also known as State Road 61. Lamar does not own the real property, but has the right to erect and maintain its sign on the property under a lease that Lamar executed with the landowner in 1998. Lamar's sign was erected in 1998, with the approval of the City of Tallahassee. The sign is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Thomasville and Betton/Bradford Road, behind the Southern Flooring showroom. The east side of the sign face is within 660 feet of and visible to State Road 61. State Road 61 is a federal-aid highway and thus a "controlled road" subject to the jurisdiction of the Department pursuant to Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the east side of the sign requires a permit from the Department. The west side is visible only to Bradford Road and does not require a permit from the Department. On February 10, 2008, Lisa Adams, an outdoor advertising inspector conducting an annual inventory on behalf of the Department, identified the subject sign as an unpermitted sign that is visible from State Road 61. Ms. Adams completed a Department compliance checklist stating that the sign was possibly illegal because it lacked a Department permit and the east side of the sign was visible from State Road 61. On April 22, 2008, the Department issued a notice of violation stating that the sign was illegal and must be removed within 30 days of the date of the notice, pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes. Lamar did not file a request for hearing in response to the notice of violation, and does not contest the notice of violation in this proceeding. On May 16, 2008, Lamar filed an Application for Outdoor Advertising Permit for the sign. The Department reviewed the application and issued a Notice of Denied Application on May 30, 2008. The application was denied because the sign site does not meet the spacing requirements of Section 479.07(9)(a)2., Florida Statutes, in that it is closer than 1,000 feet from another permitted sign owned by Lamar. The other permitted sign was built in 1979. The 1,000 foot spacing requirement has been in the statute at all times since the 1998 construction of the sign at issue in this proceeding, meaning that it could never have met the spacing requirement of Section 479.07(9)(a)2., Florida Statutes. Myron Laborde was Lamar Advertising Southeast's regional manager in 1998 when the sign was built. His area of authority included Tallahassee. Mr. Laborde testified that in 1998 the view of the sign from State Road 61 was obstructed by several palm trees, some scrub oaks, and a very tall tallow tree. Some of these trees were removed when Southern Flooring took over and remodeled the old Helms Exterminators building at 1940 Thomasville Road about four years ago. Mr. Laborde testified that the sign is now visible from State Road 61 due to the removal of the trees, but only "if you . . .turn your head 90 degrees" while driving north on State Road 61. Loyd Childree has been the vice-president and general manager of Lamar of Tallahassee since 2003. Mr. Childree testified that the renovations to the Helms Exterminators building began some time after March 2005, and that the building's size was nearly doubled to accommodate the Southern Flooring showroom. Mr. Childree testified that a lot of trees were removed during the renovation, including palm trees and a "canopy-type tree" about 25 to 30 feet tall with a full crown similar to that of an oak. Mr. Childree testified that the sign is now visible from State Road 61 due to the removal of the trees. Mr. Childree further stated that Lamar markets the sign to advertisers based on the traffic counts from Bradford Road, not those from State Road 61. Ms. Adams, the inspector who identified the possible illegality of the sign, has worked for the Department's contractor, TBE Group, since August 2004. Her job is to conduct an inventory of permitted signs on controlled roads such as State Road 61 and determine which unpermitted signs are visible from the roadway. Ms. Adams inventoried State Road 61 in 2005, 2006 and 2007 without identifying Lamar's sign as an unpermitted sign visible from the roadway. Ms. Adams testified that her predecessor in the position inventoried State Road 61 every year since Lamar's sign was erected and never identified the sign as one visible from State Road 61. Ms. Adams testified that she might have seen the sign in a previous year but did not identify it as illegal because she believed it had "on-premise" advertising, i.e., it advertised Southern Flooring. With certain restrictions, a sign erected on the premises of a business establishment that bears advertising for that establishment is exempt pursuant to Section 479.16(1), Florida Statutes. Ms. Adams frankly conceded that she was speculating and that her memory was unclear as to whether she had seen and noted this sign in past years. In any event, Lamar's log of advertisers showed that Southern Flooring never advertised on the sign. Lynn Holschuh is the Department's state outdoor advertising administrator, and had held this position since 1992. Ms. Holschuh testified that State Road 61 has been inventoried by an outdoor advertising inspector every year since Lamar's sign was erected in 1998. None of the inspectors noted the visibility or possible illegality of the sign until Ms. Adams noted the sign on February 12, 2008. Ms. Holschuh lives in Tallahassee and has driven on State Road 61 hundreds of times over the years. In her deposition, she testified that she believed the sign was not visible when it was built, and only became visible from State Road 61 when a third party removed the obstructing trees. The testimony of Mr. Laborde, Mr. Childree, and Ms. Holschuh was credible and uncontroverted as to the history of the sign. It is found that the sign was not visible from State Road 61 when it was erected in 1998, but that it became visible from State Road 61 when trees were removed by the landowner during renovations to the old Helms Exterminators building at some point after March 2005. Lamar's sign, now visible from State Road 61, is subject to the Department's jurisdiction pursuant to Section 479.01, Florida Statutes, because State Road 61, as a federal- aid primary highway, is a "controlled road" under the statute. A sign visible from a controlled road must carry a Department permit. Lamar contends that the facts of this case establish that its sign meets the definition of a "nonconforming sign" set forth in Section 479.01(14), Florida Statutes: "Nonconforming sign" means a sign which was lawfully erected but which does not comply with the land use, setback, size, spacing, and lighting provisions of state or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance passed at a later date or a sign which was lawfully erected but which later fails to comply with state or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance due to changed conditions. Lamar's sign was not visible from State Road 61 in 1998 and therefore was "lawfully erected" in terms of the Department's licensing requirements. Lamar contends that the removal of trees by a third party constituted "changed conditions" that rendered the sign out of compliance with state law, and that the sign is therefore a nonconforming sign under Section 479.01(14), Florida Statutes. The Legislature has provided no definition of the term "changed conditions," and the Department has no rule to provide interpretive guidance to the words of the statute. On September 17, 2008, Lamar filed a motion for leave to amend its petition for hearing in this case to challenge the Department's alleged interpretation of the phrase "due to changed conditions" as an unadopted rule. In particular, Lamar alleged that the Department was applying an unadopted rule limiting "changed conditions" to those initiated by a government agency. On September 19, 2008, the Department filed an unopposed motion to remand the case to the agency. The motion was granted on September 22, 2008. In the Florida Administrative Weekly dated November 26, 2008 (vol. 34, no. 48, p. 6228), the Department published a Notice of Development of Proposed Rule, with the following preliminary text of an amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.006: 14-10.006 Additional Permitting Criteria. Each application for an outdoor advertising sign permit shall meet the requirements of Sections 479.07(9) and 479.11, F.S. In addition, an application must comply with the requirements of the agreement between the state and the United States Department of Transportation referenced in Section 479.02(1), F.S., which have not been duplicated in Sections 479.07(9) and 479.11, F.S., or superseded by stricter provisions in those statutes. The requirements are: through (8) No change. (9) The term "changed conditions" referenced in Section 479.01(14), F.S., defining nonconforming signs, means only the actions of a governmental entity, as defined by Section 11.45, F.S., which includes for example: Rezoning of a commercial area, reclassifying a secondary highway as a primary highway, or altering a highway's configuration causing a preexisting sign to become subject to the Department's jurisdiction. (Emphasis added) Ms. Holschuh testified that this draft rule language was written in direct response to Lamar's allegation that the Department's denial of its application was based on an unadopted rule. On December 16, 2008, the Department held a workshop on the draft rule. At the workshop, the Florida Outdoor Advertising Association ("FOAA") submitted the following suggested draft language for subsection (9) of Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.006: (9) The term "changed conditions" referenced in Section 479.01(14), F.S., defining nonconforming signs, means, and shall include, any of the following: An action taken by a governmental entity, as defined by Section 11.45, F.S., such as the rezoning of a parcel of property fro commercial to noncommercial, reclassifying a secondary highway to a primary highway, altering a highway's configuration, or the taking of any other action within the powers of such governmental entity which thereby causes a preexisting sign to become subject to the Department's jurisdiction; The action of a third party, who is not the owner of a preexisting sign, relating to modifications to the topography, vegetation, buildings or other physical characteristics of the property upon which the sign is located, or the property surrounding the sign, which thereby causes a preexisting sign to become subject to the Department's jurisdiction. an act of God which thereby causes a preexisting sign to become subject to the Department's jurisdiction. The Department rejected the FOAA's proposed language, and ultimately abandoned the effort to adopt a rule defining the term "changed conditions." On September 18, 2009, the Department filed a motion with DOAH to reopen this case and proceed to a fact-finding hearing regarding its proposed rejection of Lamar's application. In her deposition, Ms. Holschuh testified that the rulemaking effort was abandoned because the language proposed by the FOAA made it clear that it would be "nearly impossible" to arrive at a definition that would cover "every situation that might arise for when an existing sign might suddenly become visible." Ms. Holschuh testified in deposition that it is now the Department's policy to review these matters on a case-by- case basis. However, she also testified that the Department, as a matter of "policy," continues to limit its consideration of "changed conditions" to actions taken by a governmental entity. The Department bases this limitation on the examples provided by 23 C.F.R. § 750.707(b), defining "nonconforming signs" for purposes of the Federal Highway Administration: A nonconforming sign is a sign which was lawfully erected but does not comply with the provisions of State law or State regulations passed at a later date or later fails to comply with State law or State regulations due to changed conditions. Changed conditions include, for example, signs lawfully in existence in commercial areas which at a later date become noncommercial, or signs lawfully erected on a secondary highway later classified as a primary highway. Ms. Holschuh stated that the Department's policy was applied to Lamar in the instant case, and would continue to be applied in the future unless some "extraordinary circumstance" in a specific case led the Department to revisit the policy. At the final hearing, Ms. Holschuh backed away somewhat from her flat statement that the Department's "policy" was to limit consideration of changed conditions to those caused by government action. She stated that FOAA's proposed rule language caused the Department to reconsider its position that governmental action should be the exclusive reason for granting a permit for "changed conditions," and testified that the Department will consider other circumstances in its case-by-case review of permit applications. Ms. Holschuh testified that, under the facts presented in this case, the Department would deny the permit because there is DOAH case law on point for the proposition that tree removal does not constitute "changed conditions," and because broadening the definition of "changed conditions" to include the situation presented by this case would open up the process to abuse. Ms. Holschuh testified, at more than one point in the proceeding, that the Department would have very likely granted the permit had the trees been removed by the Department rather than the private landowner. She gave no indication that Section 479.105(1)(e), Florida Statutes, or any other statute would prevent the Department from granting the permit for Lamar's nonconforming sign, should the Department find that the sign fell into nonconformity due to "changed conditions." The DOAH case law cited by Ms. Holschuh is Lamar of Tallahassee v. Department of Transportation, Case Nos. 08-0660 and 08-0661 (DOAH September 15, 2008), discussed more fully in the Conclusions of Law below. Ms. Holschuh testified that Lamar's sign is not located in a Department right-of-way and is not a hazard to the public in its current location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation denying the application of Lamar of Tallahassee for a state sign permit for a location described as State Road 61 (U.S. 319), 168 feet west of Thomasville Road, in Leon County, Florida (Application Number 57155). DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 7th day of June, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Harry Moody Signs, owns a sign which was erected in December of 1981 without a state permit. This sign is located 45 feet from the edge of the pavement or curb line of U.S. 27/301/441, and 32 feet from C-434 (Alternate 441) inside the corporate limits of Belleview, in Marion County, Florida. U.S. 27/301/441 is a federal-aid primary highway open to traffic, and C-484 is a non-controlled road. U.S. 27/301/441 is considered to be a north/ south highway; however, it runs almost east and west in Belleview where it intersects C-484, which runs generally northeast and southwest at the point of intersection. The Respondent's sign is located northeast of U.S. 27/301/441, facing a westerly direction, and is visible to traffic from the southbound lane of this controlled highway. The sign in question is approximately 298 feet from a permitted sign (permit no. 947-6) which is also situated on the northeast side of U.S. 27/301/141. Although the Respondent's witness testified that the sign in question is more parallel to the primary highway than perpendicular to it, and that the permitted sign is perpendicular to this highway, both signs are visible from U.S. 27/301/441, and the copy on the Respondent's sign can be read from a distance of 300 to 400 feet away, at least. The Petitioners witness testified that the Respondent's sign stands at an angle of approximately 45 degrees from the permitted sign, and becomes visible at a distance of 929 feet in the southbound lane of U.S. 27/301/441. Additionally, the subject sign first begins to come into view on Alternate 441 (C-484) at a distance of 470 feet. At a distance of 500 feet on Alternate 441 the sign is not visible because a building located close to the road blocks the view. The measurements of distances on Alternate 441 were made by using a calibrated hand wheel on the side of the road. The distances on U.S. 27/301/441 were measured by using a calibrated electric odometer in an automobile. The Department of Transportation permits, regulates and controls signs within city limits that are adjacent to both controlled roads and non-controlled roads when the signs are visible from the main traveled way of the controlled road (federal-aid primary highway). The Respondent applied for a permit after the sign had been erected, and this application was denied because the Respondent's sign was located 298 feet from a permitted sign, causing a spacing violation. The permitted sign is also owned by the Respondent, and this permitted sign is being used as an on- premise sign. However, the state permit is currently in effect, and the Respondent plans to maintain the sign as a permitted sign. The Respondent receives revenues from rental of the permitted sign, and the Respondent pays the property owner for use of the permitted sign's location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter its Final Order finding the Respondent's sign which is the subject of this proceeding to be in violation of the applicable statutes and rules, and ordering its removal. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this the 1st day of November, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Paul Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Whiteco is the successor in interest to a sign along U.S. 19, 7.83 miles north of the Pinellas-Pasco County line. Deeb Construction Co. obtained a permit on February 26, 1980, to erect a sign at the location in Finding of Fact #1 facing both north and south (Exhibit 2). This sign was erected and a permit for each face was issued. In January, 1981, Ridgewood Signs, on behalf of Deeb Construction, submitted Permit Affidavit Form (Exhibit 3) to replace the existing 8' x 16' sign with a 12' x 40' sign and on February 11, 1981, the DOT Sign Inspector prepared a Certificate of Sign Removal (Exhibit 4). Permit Tags AB 061 and AB 062 issued for the original sign were cancelled. On February 9, 1981, Deeb's application to erect a sign at this same location facing north only was approved (Exhibit 1). Tag Number AD 484-10 was issued for this north-facing sign. No application was submitted for a south- facing sign at this location and no tag for such a sign was issued. 5. Despite the lack of a permit for a south-facing sign at this location, a south face was placed on the structure and the notice of alleged violation (Exhibit 5) was issued for this south facing sign. This sign is 797 feet from a permitted sign along U.S. 19 on the same side of the highway facing south.
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 The issues in this case are whether the Department of Transportation properly issued a Notice of Violation for an illegally erected sign to Lamar of Tallahassee and whether the Petitioner's applications for a sign maintained at the corner of SR366/West Pensacola Street and Ocala Road, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, should be granted as a non-conforming sign or because the Department did not act on either the 2005 or 2007 application for the same sign in a timely manner.
Findings Of Fact Under Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, the Department is the state agency responsible for regulating outdoor advertising signs located within 660 feet of the state highway system, interstate, or federal-aid primary system. Lamar owns and operates outdoor advertising signs in the State of Florida. On March 15, 2005, Lamar applied for a permit from the Department to erect the subject sign. The permit was denied because it was within 1,000 feet of another permitted sign owned by Lamar that is located on SR366/West Pensacola Street. The review process for Lamar’s application for a sign permit involved a two-step process. Initially, Mr. Strickland, the State Outdoor Advertising Administrator, reviewed Lamar’s application. He determined that the sign was within 1,000 feet of another permitted structure. On April 12, 2007, he preliminarily denied Petitioner’s application, prepared the Notice of Denied Application reflecting a denial issuance date of April 12, 2005, and entered his preliminary decision on the Department’s internal database. On the same date, Mr. Strickland forwarded the permit file along with his preliminary decision and letter to his superior, Juanice Hagan. The preliminary decision was made within 30 days of receipt of Lamar’s application. Ms. Hagan did not testify at the hearing. However, at some point, Ms. Hagan approved Mr. Strickland’s preliminary decision and entered the official action of the Department on the Department’s public database. That database reflects the final decision to deny the application was made on April 20, 2005, outside of the 30 days of receipt of Lamar’s application. On the other hand, Ms. Hagan signed the Notice of Denied Application with an issuance date of April 12, 2005. Her signature indicates that her final approval, whenever it may have occurred, related back to April 12, 2005, and was within 30 days of receipt of Lamar’s application. Lamar received the Department’s letter denying its application, along with the return of its application and application fee. The letter contained a clear point of entry advising Lamar of its hearing rights under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. However, Lamar did not request a hearing concerning the denied application as required in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0042(3). Nor did Lamar inform the Department’s clerk in writing that it intended to rely on the deemer provision set forth in Section 120.60, Florida Statutes. Absent a Chapter 120 challenge to the Department’s action, the Department’s denial became final under Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0042(3). After the denial, Lamar performed a Height Above Ground Level (HAGL) test on the proposed sign’s site. The test is used to determine whether the sign face can be seen from a particular viewing location. Lamar determined that the South face could not be seen from SR366/West Pensacola Street due to some large trees located along the West side of Ocala Road and behind the gas station in front of the sign. Pictures of the area surrounding the sign’s proposed location, filed with the 2005 permit application, show a number of trees that are considerably taller than the roof of the adjacent gas station and utility poles. These trees appear to be capable of blocking the view of the sign face from SR366/West Pensacola Street and support the results from Lamar’s HAGL test. Since the sign could not be seen from a federal aid highway, it did not require a permit. Therefore, around August or October 2005, Lamar built the subject sign on the west side of Ocala Road and 222 feet north of SR 366/West Pensacola Street in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. As constructed, the sign sits on a large monopole with two faces, approximately 10 1/2 feet in height and 36 feet wide. The sign’s height above ground level is 28 feet extending upwards to 40 feet. The north face of the sign does not require a permit since it can only be seen from Ocala Road. Likewise, at the time of construction and for some time thereafter, the south face of the sign did not require a permit since it was not visible from a federal aid highway. Following construction of the subject sign, some of the large trees were removed. The removal caused the south face of the sign to be clearly visible from the main traveled way of SR366/West Pensacola Street. On March 21, 2007, the sign was issued a Notice of Violation for an illegally erected sign because it did not have a permit. The Notice of Violation stated: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the advertising sign noted below is in violation of section 479.01, Florida Statutes. An outdoor advertising permit is required but has not been issued for this sign. The Notice cited the wrong statute and, on June 12, 2008, an amended Notice of Violation for an illegally erected sign was issued by the Department. The Amended Notice changed the statutory citation from Section 479.01 to Section 479.07, Florida Statutes. Both the original Notice and Amended Notice stated the correct basis for the violation as: "An outdoor advertising permit is required but has not been issued for this sign." On December 18, 2007, Lamar submitted a second application for an Outdoor Advertising permit for an existing sign. The application was denied on January 8, 2008, due to spacing conflicts with permitted signs BX250 and BX251. The denial cited incorrect tag numbers for the sign causing the spacing conflict. The incorrect tag numbers were brought to the attention of Mr. Strickland. The Department conducted a field inspection of the sign’s area sometime between December 20, 2007 and January 20, 2008. The inspection confirmed that the spacing conflict was caused by signs BZ685 and BZ686. The signs were within 839 feet of the subject sign and owned by Lamar. An Amended Notice of Denied Application was issued by the Department on January 24, 2008. However, the evidence was clear that the Department made the decision to deny the application based on spacing conflicts on January 8, 2008. The fact that paperwork had to be made to conform to and catch up with that decision does not change the date the Department initially acted upon Lamar’s application. Therefore, the 2007 application was acted upon within 30 days. The Department’s employee responsible for issuing violation notices is Lynn Holschuh. She confirmed that if the south sign face was completely blocked from view from the main traveled way of SR366/West Pensacola Street when it was originally constructed, a sign permit would not be required from the Department. Ms. Holschuh further testified that if a change in circumstances occurred resulting in the subject sign becoming visible from the main traveled way of Pensacola Street, the sign might be permitted by the Department as a non-conforming sign, if it met the criteria for such. In this case, the south face of the sign was once legal and did not require a permit because several large trees blocked the sign’s visibility from a federal aid highway. The removal of the trees that blocked the sign caused the sign to become visible from a federal aid highway. In short, the south sign face no longer conformed to the Florida Statutes and Rules governing such signs and now is required to have a sign permit. However, the sign has not been in continuous existence for seven years and has received a Notice of Violation since its construction in 2005. The evidence was clear that the sign does not meet the requirements to qualify as a nonconforming sign and cannot be permitted as such. Therefore, Petitioner’s application for a sign permit should be denied and the sign removed pursuant to the Notice of Violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying Petitioner a permit for the sign located on the west side of Ocala Road, 222 feet North of SR366/West Pensacola Street and enforcing the Notice of Violation for said sign and requiring removal of the south sign face pursuant thereto. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 15th day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kimberly Clark Menchion, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James C. Myers Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Alexis M. Yarbrough, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Stephanie Kopelousos, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent should revoke Petitioner's sign permits and retrieve Petitioner's permit tags because Petitioner violated Sections 479.07(5) and 479.08, Florida Statutes, 1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 10.004(7), 2/ by allegedly removing its sign from its property and by failing to display the permit tag prior to removing the sign.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation formed in 1983 by Mr. Rodney Forton. Mr. Forton is the president and sole shareholder of Petitioner. Sometime in 1987, Petitioner entered into a management agreement with Cotee River Outdoor Advertising Company ("Cotee River"). The management agreement provided that Cotee River would construct a sign on property owned by Petitioner on U.S. highway 19 in New Port Richey, Florida (the "Cotee River sign"). Cotee River agreed to pay Petitioner a portion of the advertising revenues from the sign. The Cotee River Permit On May 26, 1987, Cotee River applied for an outdoor advertising sign permit from Respondent. The application described the Cotee River sign as a rectangular wood sign measuring 10 feet by 20 feet, with its lowest point approximately 15 feet above ground level and its highest point approximately 25 feet above the crown of the road. Respondent approved the application and mailed the approval to Cotee River on May 29, 1987. On June 3, 1987, Respondent located the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory at, Section 595, ". . . N/B 5.06 in F/N." The number "5.06" indicates that the sign is located at milepost 5.06 on U.S. 19. 3/ Mileposts describe the location of each sign by the distance of the sign from a fixed point. Each of Respondent's outdoor advertising inspectors measures the milepost for each sign in his or her territory using a distance measuring instrument. Respondent then enters the milepost for each sign in Respondent's sign inventory. The milepost of 5.06 that Respondent assigned to the Cotee River permit was incorrect. In May 1987, Cotee River constructed a sign on Petitioner's property pursuant to the permit granted by Respondent. The sign was a metal monopole sign rather than the wood sign described in the application. The Cotee River sign was not constructed at milepost 5.060. Cotee River rented the sign to outdoor advertisers. However, Cotee River failed to pay any portion of the advertising revenue to Petitioner, and the parties resolved the matter by mutual agreement. Petitioner and Cotee River agreed that Cotee River would release its right to manage the Cotee River sign in consideration for the right to manage a sign located on other property owned by Petitioner. The agreement provided that Petitioner would pay Cotee River a prescribed sum in exchange for the performance of specific duties by Cotee River. Cotee River failed to perform the duties specified in the agreement. Petitioner refused to pay the balance of payments. Petitioner sued Cotee River. Cotee River went into bankruptcy and was dissolved. Petitioner's Permit On July 14, 1992, Petitioner applied for an outdoor advertising sign permit for the Cotee River sign. The application described the sign as an existing rectangular, metal, monopole "sign in place," measuring approximately 10 feet by 20 feet. The application stated that the sign was first erected in May 1987. Respondent approved the application from Petitioner and mailed the approval to Petitioner on October 12, 1992. Respondent again incorrectly listed the location of the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory as, Section 595, ". . . N/B 5.060 in F/N." Respondent issued permit tag number BG341-25 to Petitioner. Although Petitioner used the Cotee River sign to generate advertising revenue, Petitioner never displayed any tag numbers on the sign. The tag numbers remained in Petitioner's files until sometime in 1995. Dr. Goluba's Permit At about the same time that Cotee River went out of business in 1992, Robert L. Goluba, D.D.S., owned property immediately adjacent to Petitioner's property. Prior to March 1993, an unidentified representative of Respondent contacted Dr. Goluba. The representative told Dr. Goluba that there were two signs on Dr. Goluba's property that were going to be taken down if the sign permits were not renewed. The representative mistakenly identified one of the two signs as the Cotee River sign. The representative went on to explain that Respondent could avoid the expense of taking down the two signs if Dr. Goluba obtained permits for the signs. Dr. Goluba wanted the advertising revenues and agreed to obtain the necessary permits. On March 2, 1993, Dr. Goluba applied for a sign permit for the Cotee River sign he mistakenly believed to be located on his property. The application described the sign as an "existing" rectangular, metal, monopole sign measuring approximately 10 feet by 24 feet, with its lowest point approximately 18 feet above ground level and its highest point approximately 30 feet above the crown of the road. The application stated that the sign was first erected in May 1987. Respondent approved the application from Dr. Goluba and mailed the approval to him on March 8, 1993. Respondent listed the location of the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory as, Section 595, ". . . N/M.P. 4.870 in F/N." Respondent incorrectly listed Dr. Goluba's permit in the sign inventory at milepost 4.870. On March 24, 1993, Respondent issued permit number BG960-35 to Dr. Goluba. Although Dr. Goluba never derived advertising revenue from the Cotee River sign, he did display his permit on the sign. Dr. Goluba inadvertently failed to pay the fee required to renew the sign permit in 1994 and, therefore, failed to display current permits on the sign. On April 11, 1994, Respondent issued a Notice of Violation, Failure To Display Permit Tag. The New Outdoor Advertising Inspector In early 1995, a new outdoor advertising inspector assumed responsibility for the territory in which the Cotee River sign was located. On April 11, 1995, the inspector conducted a field inspection to verify the mileposts and signs in the territory for which he was responsible. The inspector correctly identified the milepost of the Cotee River sign as milepost 4.980. He found no sign subject to regulation by Respondent 4/ located at milepost 5.060. Milepost 5.060 and 4.980 are approximately 422 feet apart. Relevant law prohibits the location of regulated signs within 1,000 feet of each other. 5/ No exceptions to 1,000 foot prohibition applied to the Cotee River sign. The inspector concluded that Petitioner had removed the wood sign originally permitted to Cotee River in 1987 and which Respondent had incorrectly listed in its sign inventory as being located at milepost 5.060. On July 12, 1995, Respondent issued to Petitioner a Notice Of Violation -- Removed Sign. On August 22, 1995, Respondent ordered the revocation of Petitioner's tag permit because Petitioner had allegedly removed the Cotee River sign from milepost 5.060. Respondent never issued a Notice of Violation to Petitioner for failure to display his tag numbers on the Cotee River sign. Petitioner protested the revocation of its permit and refused to return the permit tags to Respondent. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. In the meantime, Dr. Goluba's accountant had inadvertently failed to pay the permit fee for the Cotee River sign. Respondent placed the Cotee River sign on Respondent's "cutdown list" for failure to pay the required fees. On June 20, 1995, Respondent had the Cotee River sign cut down and removed. Respondent sent Dr. Goluba a bill in the amount of $4,990 for the cost of cutting the sign down and removing it. Prior to the date Respondent cut down and removed the Cotee River sign, Petitioner notified the inspector verbally and with written documentation that the sign was owned by Petitioner, located on Petitioner's property, and permitted to Petitioner. The inspector found that Respondent's records did not agree with Petitioner's records. The inspector informed Petitioner that the "cutdown order" came from Tallahassee and there was nothing the inspector could do. Dr. Goluba's tags were displayed on the Cotee River sign at the time it was cut down and removed. Ms. Maria Passanisi was the broker who managed the sign for Dr. Goluba. Ms. Passanisi was at the site when the sign was cut down and removed. She protested Respondent's action so vehemently that the police officers regulating traffic at the scene had to intervene to quell the disturbance. After Respondent cut down the Cotee River sign, Petitioner drove a stick into the ground where the sign had been located and displayed the permit tags for the removed sign on the stick. The tags were displayed on the stick at the time of the hearing. The Computerized Sign Inventory Respondent uses a computer system to maintain its sign inventory. The computer system does not accept the same milepost for two or more regulated signs. When Petitioner applied for its sign permit in 1992, Respondent was required to carry the Cotee River permit in the inventory as a void permit. The computer system would not accept the same milepost for Petitioner's permit and the void Cotee River permit. In order to circumvent the computer system, Respondent's supervisor of property management arbitrarily changed the milepost number entered for the Cotee River permit from milepost 5.060 to milepost 4.970. As late as September 20, 1993, Respondent's computerized sign inventory identified the Cotee River sign as being located at three incorrect mileposts. The inventory located the same sign permitted to Cotee River, Petitioner, and Dr. Goluba, respectively, at mileposts 4.970, 5.060, and 4.870. In 1995, the new outdoor advertising inspector correctly located the Cotee River sign at milepost 4.980. However, he mistakenly assumed that milepost 5.060 was the correct milepost for Petitioner's sign and erroneously concluded that Petitioner had removed its sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not remove the permitted sign and that the permits issued to Petitioner are valid. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1997.
The Issue At issue 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.
The Issue Whether Respondent's outdoor sign permit should be revoked because the original sign has been destroyed by an Act of God, as alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this controversy, Petitioner, Department of Transportation (DOT), seeks to revoke a permit (No. BP844) for an off-premise outdoor advertising sign owned by Respondent, National Advertising Company (Respondent), an entity now known as "Infinity Outdoor," on the grounds that the original sign was destroyed by a hurricane in October 1999, the sign has lost its nonconforming status, and Respondent cannot lawfully rebuild the structure. In response to these charges, Respondent contends that after the sign was damaged, unknown persons stole the damaged structural pieces that were going to be used in part to rebuild the sign. Under a theory first disclosed at hearing, Respondent went on to contend that if those materials were still available, it could qualify for a seldom, if ever, used exception found in Rule 14-10.007(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, which would otherwise allow it to reconstruct the sign. That rule provides in part that a sign will not be considered destroyed if the owner can demonstrate that "the replacement material costs to reerect the sign would not exceed [fifty percent] of the value of the structural materials in the sign, immediately prior to destruction." Using that provision, Respondent argues that much of the sign's structure could have been rebuilt with the now- stolen materials, and the remaining "replacement material costs" would not exceed the threshold in the rule. The sign was erected in 1968 before spacing requirements for signs were first adopted in 1972; therefore, unless it is destroyed, the sign can continue to qualify for nonconforming status as long as it remains substantially the same as it was as of the date it became nonconforming. Because the sign is situated on U.S. Highway 1 in Brevard County, a federal-aid primary highway, and another permitted sign lies approximately 200 feet away, under current spacing requirements, a sign cannot be rebuilt on the same site. This is because current spacing requirements prohibit two signs from being closer than 1,000 feet apart on a federal-aid primary roadway. The sign in question is located adjacent to U.S. Highway 1, 0.341 miles north of Florida Memorial Gardens in Brevard County, Florida. In October 1999, Hurricane Irene tracked northward along the eastern coast of Florida causing extensive wind damage, including substantial damage to Respondent's sign. Photographs received in evidence as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3 show the condition of the sign on October 26, 1999, or shortly after it was damaged by the hurricane. Among other things, two of the five support poles (which were buried to a depth of eight feet) were "splintered" approximately two to three feet above ground level, while the other three were "knocked over" and "broken" at ground level. The wooden facing of the sign "had been knocked up against a pine tree" and the wooden plywood "panels [on which the sign message is printed] were split." The "stringers," whose numbers were variously described in the record as nine and sixteen, and which measure 2 x 4 x 20 feet and support the backside of the structure between the poles, were also damaged. The condition of the sign is corroborated by similar photographs taken on October 18 and 22, 1999, by a code enforcement officer of Brevard County. In the judgment of the DOT inspector who visited the site shortly after the hurricane, none of the damaged structural materials (poles and stringers) could be reused due to the amount of damage caused by the hurricane's winds. However, the inspector was unable to assign a replacement cost for any of those structural materials, or the replacement value of the sign immediately prior to its destruction. On an unknown date, but after the photographs were taken by DOT on October 26, 1999, Respondent's operations manager, Billy Nichols (Nichols), instructed a subcontracting crew to inspect each of the company's signs and to drop off at each sign location "what they thought we may have needed" to repair the signs. After inspecting the sign in question, the crew deposited five brand new poles at the site. Respondent takes the position that it always intended to use a combination of old and new materials, rather than all new materials, to repair the damaged sign. The date on which this decision was made by Respondent is not apparent in the record. In addition, despite a lack of clarity in the record, in its post-hearing filing, Respondent represents that the new poles were deposited at the site before the damaged materials were removed. However, it can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that based on the subcontractor's actions, Respondent originally intended to replace virtually the entire structure since five new poles were dropped off at the site of the sign; after a Citation was issued, Respondent apparently decided to reerect the sign under the theory proposed at hearing. Sometime after November 8, 1999, when DOT issued its Citation, Respondent maintains that much of the debris from the site, including the damaged poles and stringers, was unlawfully removed by unknown persons, resulting in Respondent being forced to rebuild the sign with all new materials. The new poles, however, were not removed and remained at the site. Because of the Citation, no work has occurred pending the outcome of this proceeding. In applying the terms of the rule relied upon by Respondent, DOT ascertains the cost of the sign and the replacement materials by utilizing cost data from retail stores, such as Home Depot or Lowe's, on a date as close to the date of destruction as is possible. In this case, that date would fall in September or October 1999. In addition, even if a sign owner decides to repair his sign with used or recycled materials, those materials would still be valued as if they were new. Further, only items such as supporting braces (stringers) or members of the sign structure (support poles) qualify as structural materials. This means that the sign facing would not be considered a structural component within the meaning of the rule. Finally, any old materials from the original sign that were reused would not be a part of the overall cost. Apart from the cost issue, in reconstructing the sign, the owner must return the sign to substantially the same configuration as before the damage. Thus, any change in the height or width of the sign facing, the number of feet that the sign sits above the ground, the structural safety of the sign, or the size of the replacement materials, might constitute a substantial change and prohibit reerection. In the case at bar, the testimony establishes that if Respondent proposes to change the height of the sign, the type of structural materials used, or the number of support poles, this would constitute a substantial change in the sign and disqualify Respondent from utilizing the exception in the rule. Although the rule does not specifically require such information, to prove that materials were stolen by unknown persons, historically DOT has required that the owner submit a police report confirming that materials were stolen. In this case, no police report was ever filed by Respondent, nor did it file a claim with its insurance company for the value of the materials allegedly stolen. Respondent submitted cost data from three local "supplier[s]" confirming that the value of the structural components of the sign just prior to its being damaged was not greater than $1202.00. This figure was derived by taking the cost of five new poles at $202.00 per pole, or $1010.00, and sixteen new stringers at a cost of $12.00 per stringer, or $192.00. Respondent's suggestion that the cost of plywood for the new sign facing ($636.00) should also be counted as a structural material has been rejected since that component does not qualify as such a material under the rule. Respondent's operation supervisor (Nichols) offered two alternatives for repairing the sign. First, he suggested that by lowering the structure below its previous height, he could reerect the sign using only two new poles. This alternative, however, would substantially change the sign's configuration and violate the terms of the rule. Second, in order to keep the sign at its original height, Nichols stated that he would purchase three new poles and "stub" two of the damaged poles by adding two more stringers. The second option would cost only $630.00, but under this alternative, the value of the replacement materials would exceed fifty percent of the cost of the structure ($1202.00) just prior to the sign being damaged. Then, too, the record shows that by making this type of repair, the sign facing would be weaker, making it less safe; its wind load would be changed; and the sign height would be lower. Thus, these modifications would constitute a substantial change.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order confirming that the outdoor advertising sign maintained by National Advertising Company under Permit No. BP844 has been destroyed, is nonconforming, and cannot be reerected. The permit should also be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day 12th of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation Attn: James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Aileen M. Reilly, Esquire Livingston & Reilly, P.A. Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Jodi B. Jennings, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela S. Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
