Findings Of Fact V.J. Patel, general manager of the Best Western North Florida Inn, caused a sign to be erected a tenth of a mile south of State Road 143, advertising the motel. At all pertinent times, Shree Realty, Inc., Mr. Patel's employer, owned both the motel and the sign. At no time was the owner's name anywhere on the sign. Glenel Bowden, an outdoor advertising sign inspector employed by the Department of Transportation (DOT), told Mr. Patel he thought the unpermitted sign, visible to southbound traffic on Interstate 75, was unlawful. Mr. Pate1 and Mr. Bowden discussed the question of the sign's legality on several occasions. On August 28, 1989, Mr. Bowden posted a fluorescent orange violation notice on one of the poles supporting the sign, visible to anyone viewing either of the sign's faces from the highway. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. With this development, conversations between the two men ceased. When Mr. Bowden returned to the sign a few days after posting the violation notice, the notice had been removed. Although he stopped by the motel in search of Mr. Patel, and telephoned several times, leaving requests that Mr. Patel return his telephone calls, Mr. Bowden did not succeed in speaking to Mr. Patel again until October 17, 1989, the day the sign was taken down. On August 29, 1989, DOT's administrator for District Two, Tom Brown, signed a notice to show cause addressed to "Vijay" Patel at Route 1, Box 222, Jennings, Florida. DOT sent the notice by certified mail that day, and it arrived at the motel the following day. Tina Williams, a desk clerk, signed for it. The notice DOT mailed to Mr. Patel advised of the necessity to ask for a formal administrative hearing, if desired, within 30 days. The notice stated: You must comply with the applicable provisions of the said Statute(s) and Code(s) within thirty (30) days from the date of the posted notice . . . or, in the alternative, an administrative hearing must be requested by you within thirty (30) days of the date of this notice. . . . In either case, if you fail to comply within the thirty (30) day period above, then the . . . violation(s) shall be considered true . . . [one possible result being] removal of the sign without further notice. The notice, itself dated August 29, 1989, advised that the sign "was posted with a notice pursuant to Section 479.105(l)(a) on August 28, 1989." On October 2, 1989, 32 days after the notice DOT mailed reached the motel, Mr. Patel went to a lawyer's office. That day the lawyer signed and mailed a request for hearing on behalf of V. J. Patel. The hearing request reached DOT on October 5, 1989, 38 days after Mr. Bowden posted the notice of violation on the sign pole, and 37 days after DOT mailed notice to Mr. Patel. Until the final hearing, when counsel first disclosed the true owner of the sign to DOT, Shree Realty, Inc. never requested a hearing.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DOT enter an order dismissing the request for formal hearing with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 William J. Haley, Esquire Nancy Staff Slayden, Esquire Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, FL 32056-1029 Robert Scanlon, III General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation cited National Advertising Company for the maintenance of eight (8) outdoor advertising signs without current permit tags in violation of spacing requirements. The subject signs are listed on Exhibit 1 attached hereto and are owned and maintained by Respondent. The subject signs are located along I-95 in the vicinity of Orlando, Florida. The subject signs had valid county tags for 1972. The subject signs had no tags for 1973, but by agreement between Respondent and Petitioner this lack of 1973 tags has been disregarded. In the fall of 1974 Petitioner issued Respondent county tags for the subject signs. When affixing these tags to the signs Respondent discovered that there was some confusion over whether the signs were in the county or were in the city limits of Orlando. Respondent went to the City offices and asked if the signs were in the city limits and was told that the City did not know. Respondent then went to the County offices and was told that the signs were in the city. Respondent them communicated this information to Mr. Kennedy, an employee of the Department of Transportation in the DeLand office who agreed that the tags would not be put on the subject signs unless it was determined at some later date that the signs were actually located in the county and not in the city. At the time of this agreement Respondent was in possession of the 1974 county tags and was prepared to affix then to the subject signs. Because of the agreement however, the tags were not affixed to the subject signs. Confusion persisted over the question of whether the signs were located inside or outside of the city limits. In the fall of 1975, Respondent submitted a permit application for annual renewal for the subject signs requesting city tags. Petitioner granted this application and in late 1975 issued city tags for the subject signs. These tags have since been affixed to the subject signs and remain there at the time of this hearing. Representatives of Petitioner visited the Orange County Zoning Department on February 11, 1976 in attempt to determine whether the subject signs were located in the county or in the city. Petitioner's representatives determined that the signs were located in the county. During 1974 and 1975 there was a great deal of confusion on the part of both Petitioner and Respondent concerning the question of whether the subject signs were in Orange County or in the City of Orlando. Respondent, in good faith, diligently attempted to resolve the confusion. It appears however, that Petitioner and Respondent were not able to resolve the confusion until early 1976 and shortly before this hearing. Respondent made no application for 1976 permits for the subject signs before May 13, 1976.
Findings Of Fact The facts here involved are not in dispute. In 1966 Petitioner leased the property adjacent to Cypress Street in Tampa and erected a structure thereon on the 1-275 3.6 miles west of 1-4, containing signs facing both east and west. By application dated 20 October 1977 (Exhibits 1 and 2) Petitioner applied for permits for these signs. The applications were disapproved because of spacing. Likewise, on 20 October 1977, Petitioner submitted application for a permit for a sign on the 1-4 2.9 miles east of U.S. 41 with a copy of the lease dated 1967. This sign is located in Tampa and the application was also disapproved because of spacing. Both of these locations are zoned commercial and are within the corporate limits of Tampa, Florida. The structure on which the signs shown on Exhibits 1 and 2 were erected was built in 1968 and the sign involved in Exhibit 3 was built in 1967. The signs for which a permit was requested in Exhibits 1 and 2 is located 325 feet north of a permitted structure owned by Tampa Outdoor Advertising, Inc. on the same side of the street and facing in the same direction. The sign for which a permit was requested in Exhibit 3 is 275 feet west of a permitted sign facing the same direction and on the same side of the street which is owned by Foster and Kleiser. No appeal was taken from these disapprovals, but by applications dated June 19, 1979, Petitioner in Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 reapplied for permits for the same signs that had been disapproved in 1977. These applications were also disapproved because of spacing. The I-4 and the I-275 are part of the Interstate Highway system.
The Issue Whether the mural on the east exterior wall of the City Inn Hotel is an illegal sign subject to removal pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, including the parties' factual stipulations, the following findings of fact are made: Pursuant to federal law (specifically, 23 U.S.C. § 131(b) of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965), a state's share of federal-aid highway funds may be reduced by ten percent if the state has failed to maintain "effective control" of outdoor advertising "along the Interstate System and the primary system." What constitutes "effective control," as that term is used in 23 U.S.C. § 131(b), is explained as follows in 23 U.S.C. § 131(c): Effective control means that such signs, displays, or devices after January 1, 1968, if located within six hundred and sixty feet of the right-of-way and, on or after July 1, 1975, or after the expiration of the next regular session of the State legislature, whichever is later, if located beyond six hundred and sixty feet of the right-of-way, located outside of urban areas, visible from the main traveled way of the system, and erected with the purpose of their message being read from such main traveled way, shall, pursuant to this section, be limited to (1) directional and official signs and notices, which signs and notices shall include, but not be limited to, signs and notices pertaining to natural wonders, scenic and historical attractions, which are required or authorized by law, which shall conform to national standards hereby authorized to be promulgated by the Secretary hereunder, which standards shall contain provisions concerning lighting, size, number, and spacing of signs, and such other requirements as may be appropriate to implement this section, (2) signs, displays, and devices advertising the sale or lease of property upon which they are located, signs, displays, and devices including those which may be changed at reasonable intervals by electronic process or by remote control, advertising activities conducted on the property on which they are located, signs lawfully in existence on October 22, 1965, determined by the State, subject to the approval of the Secretary, to be landmark signs, including signs on farm structures or natural surfaces, of historic or artistic significance the preservation of which would be consistent with the purposes of this section, and (5) signs, displays, and devices advertising the distribution by nonprofit organizations of free coffee to individuals traveling on the Interstate System or the primary system. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "free coffee" shall include coffee for which a donation may be made, but is not required. An exception to the restrictions imposed on outdoor advertising by 23 U.S.C. § 131(c) is found in 23 U.S.C. § 131(d), which allows the placement of signs in commercial and industrial areas "consistent with customary use," as "determined by agreement between the several States and the Secretary [of the federal Department of Transportation]." Florida is a signatory to such an agreement. The agreement was entered into on January 27, 1972, by the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, acting on behalf of the federal Department of Transportation, and the Governor of the State of Florida, acting on behalf of the State (1972 Agreement). Section II. of the 1972 Agreement is entitled, "Scope of Agreement," and it reads as follows: This agreement shall apply to the following areas: All zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the nearest edge of the right- of-way of all portions of the Interstate and Federal-aid Primary Systems within the State of Florida in which outdoor advertising signs may be visible from the main-traveled way of either or both of said systems. Section III. of the 1972 Agreement is entitled, "State Control," and it reads, in pertinent part, as follows: The State hereby agrees that, in all areas within the scope of this agreement, the State shall effectively control, or cause to be controlled, the erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs, displays, and devices erected subsequent to the effective date of this agreement, other than those advertising signs permitted under the terms and provisions of Florida Statutes 479.16 as of the date of this agreement, in accordance with the following criteria: In zoned commercial and industrial areas, the State may notify the Administrator that there has been established within such areas regulations which are enforced with respect to the size, lighting, and spacing of outdoor advertising signs consistent with the intent of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and with customary use. In such areas, the size, lighting, and spacing requirements set forth below shall not apply. In all other zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas, the criteria set forth below shall apply: SIZE OF SIGNS The maximum area for any one sign shall be twelve hundred (1,200) square feet with a maximum height of thirty (30) feet and maximum length of sixty (60) feet, inclusive of any border and trim but excluding the base or apron, supports, and other structural members. The area shall be measured by the smallest square, rectangle, triangle, circle, or combination thereof which will encompass the entire sign. The maximum size limitations shall apply to each side of a sign structure; and signs may be placed back-to-back, side-by-side, or in V-type construction with not more than two displays to each facing, and such sign structure shall be considered as one sign. SPACING OF SIGNS Interstate and Federal-aid Primary Highways. Signs may not be located in such a manner as to obscure, or otherwise physically interfere with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, signal, or device, obstruct or physically interfere with the deriver's view of approaching, merging, or intersecting traffic. Interstate Highway. a. No two structures shall be spaced less than one thousand (1,000) feet apart on the same side of the highway facing the same direction. * * * Federal-aid Primary Highways. No two structures shall be spaced less than five hundred (500) feet apart on the same side of the highway facing the same direction. Explanatory Notes. Official and "on premise" signs, as defined in Section 131(c) of Title 23, United States Code, and structures that are not lawfully maintained shall not be counted nor shall measurements be made from them for purposes of determining compliance with spacing requirements. The minimum distance between structures shall be measured along the nearest edge of the pavement between points directly opposite the signs along each side of the highway and shall apply only to structures located on the same side of the highway. LIGHTING Signs may be illuminated subject to the following restrictions: Signs which contain, include, or are illuminated by any flashing, intermittent, or moving light or lights are prohibited, except those giving public service information such as time, date, temperature, weather, or similar information. Signs which are not effectively shielded as to prevent beams or rays of light from being directed at any portion of the traveled ways of the Interstate or Federal- aid Primary Highway and which are of such intensity or brilliance as to cause glare or to imp[air] the vision of the driver of any motor vehicle, or which otherwise interfere with any driver's operation of a motor vehicle are prohibited. No sign shall be so illuminated that it interferes with the effectiveness of, or obscures an official traffic sign, device, or signal. All such lighting shall be subject to any other provisions relating to lighting of signs presently applicable to all highways under the jurisdiction of the State. At any time that a bona fide county or local zoning authority adopts regulations which include the size, lighting, and spacing of outdoor adverting, the State may so certify to the Administrator and control of outdoor advertising in the commercial or industrial zones within the geographical jurisdiction of said authority will transfer to subsection A of this section. * * * Section IV. of the 1972 Agreement is entitled, "Interpretations," and it reads as follows: The provisions contained herein shall constitute the standards for effective control of signs, displays, and devices within the scope of this agreement. In the event the provisions of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 are amended by subsequent action of Congress or the State legislation is amended, the parties reserve the right to renegotiate this agreement or to modify it to conform to any amendment. The 1972 Agreement has not been modified, pursuant to the provisions of Section IV., at any time subsequent to its execution in 1972. The Florida Legislature has delegated to the Department the responsibility of administering and enforcing the 1972 Agreement, as well as Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, which regulates "outdoor advertising." As the Department's Outdoor Advertising Administrator, Lynn Holschuh is responsible for overseeing the Department's discharge of this responsibility. She has delegated to the Regional Inspectors under her charge (including Mark Johnson, the lone Regional Inspector whose territory includes Miami-Dade County) the authority to post notices of violations on all illegal signs, without restriction. Among the provisions in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, is Section 479.156, Florida Statutes, which was originally effective July 1, 2007, and provides that, "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a municipality or county may permit and regulate wall murals within areas designated by such government," provided it does so within the parameters prescribed by the statute. The City of Miami has an ordinance (Miami Ordinance) permitting a limited number of wall murals in certain geographic areas of the city (wall mural districts3) that meet specified size, lighting, and spacing requirements. Among the Miami Ordinance's "Whereas" clauses is the following: WHEREAS, it is determined that the prominent display of large outdoor advertisements in the commercial and industrial Urban Core areas of Miami, as defined by Miami-Dade County, was a predominant and customary use up to and including 1972, and that permitting wall murals as designated in this ordinance is consistent with such customary use and the intent of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Sometime after May 1, 2009, the City of Miami sent to the Department a written request that it be "certified for local control over wall murals" pursuant to Section III. of the 1972 Agreement. The request read as follows: Request from the City of Miami to the Florida Department of Transportation to be certified for local control over wall murals pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 131, 23 C.F.R. § 706, Federal policy, the Federal-State Agreement dated January 27, 1972, § 479.156, Florida Statutes, and Fla. [] Admin. [Code] [R.] 14-10.025.[4] The City of Miami has passed Ordinance No. 12983 creating Sections 62-601 through 62- 618 of the Code of the City of Miami, on May 10, 2008, permitting and regulating wall murals. An amendment to that ordinance was subsequently adopted, which confirms that wall murals were a customary use as of 1972 and thereafter. Copies of the ordinance and amendment are enclosed. This ordinance was adopted with the intent to permit art or graphics on buildings and existing walls in certain commercial and industrial areas "in order to aesthetically enhance otherwise blank walls and unoccupied buildings." The funds from permitting these activities is to be utilized "to ensure quality of life and prevention of visual clutter or blight." It is estimated that nearly $2 million dollars of new local revenue is being generated from the permitting process. In these difficult economic times, this revenue is even more vital and the City is appreciative of both the State of Florida's and the Federal government's mutual assistance in helping create this stimulus. The ordinance is consistent with the intent of the Highway Beautification Act, the 1972 Federal-State agreement, and with federal regulations, federal policy, as well as with § 479.156, F.S. and Fla. Admin. [Code] R. 14-10.025. The ordinance and this submission are also consistent with the amendment to § 479.156, F.S., passed on May 1, 2009 by the Legislature in HB 1021. The City of Miami's request for certification is still pending. The Department is "awaiting [supporting] documentation from the City of Miami," which it has yet to receive. When it receives such documentation, it will refer the matter "for [the Federal Highway Administration's] determination." The Department has several "open cases" (the oldest dating back to 2006) each involving one or more allegedly illegal wall murals located in a wall mural district created by the Miami Ordinance.5 The Department has decided not to refer these "open cases" to DOAH for hearing, nor to take any other action with respect to these cases (including removal of the wall murals in question), until after a determination is made by the Federal Highway Administration as to whether the Miami Ordinance "effectively controls" outdoor advertising in the wall mural districts described in the ordinance in a manner "consistent with the intent of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and with customary use," as required by the 1972 Agreement. The City Inn Hotel (Hotel) is located at 660 Northwest 81st Street in Miami. It is not within any of the wall mural districts created by the Miami Ordinance. There presently is no local government ordinance comparable to the Miami Ordinance permitting wall murals in the area in which the Hotel is located, although Petitioner is engaged in efforts to convince the Miami-Dade County Commission that it should pass such an ordinance. Petitioner has owned the Hotel since July 2000. The Hotel is a revenue producing property. Petitioner rents out space inside the Hotel (hotel rooms, apartments, offices, and facilities for banquets and worship services); on the roof of the Hotel (for the placement of cellular towers); and on the exterior walls of the Hotel (for the display of wall murals).6 There have been "wall murals on the [exterior of the] building since [Petitioner] bought the property." At no time has Petitioner ever requested or obtained from the Department a sign permit for any of these murals. By issuance of Amended Notice of Violation-Illegally Erected Sign Number 1005005La (Amended Notice Number 1005005La) on June 23, 2006, the Department notified Petitioner that murals on the north, south, and east exterior walls of the Hotel were "in violation of Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, which requires a permit for all outdoor advertising signs not exempted by Section 479.16, Florida Statutes," and that these murals had to be "removed [by Petitioner] within thirty days" or else they would be "removed and disposed of by the Department without further notice" at Petitioner's expense. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing, and the Department forwarded the matter to DOAH for the assignment of an administrative law judge. The case was docketed as DOAH Case No. 06-3683. The final hearing in DOAH Case No. 06-3683 was held on June 5, 2007, before Administrative Law Judge Patricia M. Hart. Judge Hart issued her Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 06-3683 on September 28, 2007. Judge Hart's Recommended Order contained the following Findings of Fact: The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating outdoor advertising and for issuing permits for signs located along interstate and federal aid primary highways pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-10. See 479.02, Fla. Stat. Judah Burstyn is the president of Malibu Lodging LLC, which owns the City Inn Hotel, a 200-room hotel located at 660 Northwest 81st Street, Miami, Florida. Mr. Burstyn describes the business of Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel as a mixed-used real estate project. Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel rents hotel rooms and apartments in the City Inn Hotel property; it rents rooftop space on top of the City Inn Hotel to cellular telephone companies; it owns a used car lot located at 8028 Northwest 6th Court, Miami, Florida, adjacent to the hotel property; it rents meeting space in the hotel to a church; it rents the hotel banquet room and parking lot for special events; it rents office space and storage space in the City Inn Hotel; and it rents the use of portions of the City Inn Hotel property to tenants and the public for special events. In Plain Sight Media, a Nevada corporation, is principally engaged in the business of advertising and marketing its clients' products. In Plain Sight Media is a full-service media company that, among other things, designs, prints, installs, and removes outdoor advertising for its clients. The outdoor advertising primarily consists of images printed on large sheets of self- adhesive vinyl that are affixed to the exterior walls of buildings. In Plain Sight Media also designs and distributes promotional materials for its clients and assists its clients in direct sales of the clients' products. It does not, however, engage in actual direct sales of its clients' products. Pursuant to a lease executed March 1, 2007, by Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel and In Plain Sight Media, In Plain Sight Media leases office and other space in the City Inn Hotel property from Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel for rent totaling $21,750.00 per month. The lease provides that In Plain Sight Media has the right to "place advertising signage on the [City Inn Hotel] premises at [In Plain Sight Media's] discretion" and that In Plain Sight Media "shall use the Property as a media, marketing and advertising company for products having to do with Volkswagen, Vitamin Water and other clients represented by [In Plain Sight Media], whose clients['] promotional products and services are available on the [Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel] premises." In Plain Sight Media employs an individual who is in the office located in the City Inn Hotel from time to time, on an as-needed basis. She is responsible for answering the telephone, responding to inquiries from the public about the products of In Plain Sight Media's clients, organizing special promotional events, and performing general office work. Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel and In Plain Sight Media also executed a Lease Agreement for Wallspace at or about the end of January 2007, in which In Plain Sight Media agreed to pay Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel the greater of $21,750.00 per month or 50 percent of In Plain Sight Media's monthly ad revenue for the right to install and maintain wall signage advertisements or displays on each of the north and south exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel property at 600 [sic] Northwest 81st Street in Miami, Florida, for a minimum total monthly rent of $43,500.00. According to the testimony of Mr. Burstyn and of Marc Caldera, President of In Plain Sight Media, the March 1, 2007, lease covering office, storage space, and the use of other space in the City Inn Hotel and the adjacent parking lot and used car lot operated to void the Lease Agreement for Wallspace. On June 23, 2006, when the Amended Notice of Violation-Illegally Erected Sign was issued, large wall murals were attached to the north, east, and south exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel property advertising Heineken beer, Krieger watches, and a "Read to Achieve" program promoted by the Miami Heat basketball team. At the time of the final hearing in this case, these wall murals had been replaced with two larger wall murals on the north and south exterior walls, each approximately 60 feet wide and 65 feet high.[7] One wall mural featured a picture of a Volkswagen automobile with the slogan, "Woe isn't you. Dare to be happy," located on the south exterior wall of the City Inn Hotel, and the other featured a picture of a bottle of Vitamin Water and Shaquille O'Neal with the slogan "diesel power it works . . . for shaq," on the north exterior wall. Both of the banners were created, installed, and maintained by In Plain Sight Media. Guests at the City Inn Hotel sometimes purchase an automobile from the used car lot located adjacent to the City Inn Hotel and owned by Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel. Volkswagen automobiles are, from time to time, available for rent or for sale on this car lot. In Plain Sight Media sells Vitamin Water from a vending machine inside the City Inn Hotel property, and Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel receives a percentage of the revenue from the vending machine sales. If anyone asks about Vitamin Water at the In Plain Sight Media office in the City Inn Hotel, during the time the office is staffed, information about the product and promotional material is available. The wall murals installed on the north and south exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel property have generated inquiries to In Plain Sight Media from persons interested in its advertising and/or marketing services, and Mr. Burstyn believes that the wall murals have increased foot traffic in the City Inn Hotel. Both of the wall murals installed on the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel are visible from Interstate 95 and are located within 660 feet of the right-of-way for that federal highway. Neither In Plain Sight Media nor Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel has applied to the Department for, or obtained, outdoor advertising permits for these wall murals. The wall murals on the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel property are signs that advertise Volkswagen automobiles and Vitamin Water. As such, they cannot be displayed without an outdoor advertising permit. The wall murals do not advertise In Plain Sight Media or the City Inn Hotel, nor do they identify any merchandise or service offered as part of the principal business activity of either In Plain Sight Media or the City Inn Hotel. There is currently no agreement explicitly giving Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel the right to receive rental income attributed to outdoor advertising attached to the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel. The March 1, 2007, lease gives In Plain Sight Media the right to "place advertising signage" on the City Inn Hotel property, and it is reasonable to infer that a portion of the $21,750.00 per month rent paid to Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel by In Plain Sight Media includes rent for the use of the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel for advertising signage. This inference is supported by the terms of the lease executed in January 2007, which provided for In Plain Sight Media to pay Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel a minimum of $43,500.00 in rent for nothing more than the right to affix advertising wall murals on the exterior surfaces of the north and south walls of the City Inn Hotel. Wall murals have been attached to the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel since at least the early 1990's. Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel elicited evidence from the Department's witnesses relating to the withdrawal of a notice of violation for an illegal, unpermitted wall mural advertising "Continuum II." The notice of violation was withdrawn by the Department because it determined that the sign advertised a project that was to be developed on the site where the wall mural was displayed. When the "Continuum II" wall mural was replaced with a wall mural advertising Fiji water, a notice of violation was issued for that unpermitted sign. In her Recommended Order, Jude Hart made the following Conclusions of Law, among others: 24. Based on the findings of fact herein, the Department has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the wall murals attached to the north and south exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel are signs that are visible from and within 660 feet of a federal interstate highway and that the signs were erected and are maintained without a permit. * * * Based on the findings of fact herein, Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel has failed to carry its burden of proving that the wall murals advertising Volkswagen automobiles and Vitamin Water fall within the exemption set forth in Section 479.16(1), Florida Statutes. The principal business activity of In Plain Sight Media is marketing and promotion, including the design, erection, and maintenance of wall murals, and the principal business activity of Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel is an income-producing, mixed-use real estate venture. Volkswagen automobiles and Vitamin Water are neither principal nor accessory products or services "sold, produced, manufactured, or furnished" on the premises of the City Inn Hotel but are, at best, products incidental to the principal business activity of these companies. The fact[] that, from time to time, Volkswagen automobiles are available for sale or rent on the used car lot owned by Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel; that Vitamin Water is sold from a vending machine in the City Inn Hotel; and that the wall murals have generated interest in the advertising services provided by In Plain Sight Media and have increased the foot-traffic in the City Inn Hotel are not sufficient to establish that these wall murals advertise products or services that are the principal business activity of Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel or In Plain Sight Media. Furthermore, based on the findings of fact herein, it is reasonable to infer that part of the rental income Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel receives from In Plain Sight Media is for the right to use the hotel's exterior walls to display wall murals, so the wall murals [displayed by] Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel [are] not entitled to the exemption in Section 479.16(1), Florida Statutes. Finally, based on the findings of fact herein, Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel has failed to prove that the wall murals advertising Volkswagen automobiles and Vitamin Water are conforming or nonconforming signs for which a permit may be issued pursuant to Section 479.105(1)(e), Florida Statutes. There was no showing that wall murals have been continuously maintained on the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel for the past seven years. The wall murals must, therefore, be removed. "Based on [her] Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law," Judge Hart recommended that the Department "issue a final order finding that the wall murals attached to the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel property violate[d] Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and ordering that the wall murals be removed." In her Recommended Order, Judge Hart did not address the issue of whether the wall mural that had been attached to the east exterior wall of the Hotel, but had been removed prior to the final hearing, had been illegally erected and maintained, as had been alleged in Amended Notice Number 1005005La. Neither did she discuss the issue of whether the Department was guilty of engaging in selective enforcement. In the Final Order that it issued on December 21, 2007, the Department adopted Judge Hart's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and ordered the following, "[b]ased upon [these] Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law": ORDERED that Malibu Lodging Investments, LLC, d/b/a City Inn Hotel, shall remove the wall murals attached to the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel property identified in the Department of Transportation's Notice of Violation-Illegally Erected Sign and Amended Notice of Violation-Illegally Erected Sign, Notice No. 100505La [sic], within 30 days of this final order. It is further ORDERED that should Malibu Lodging Investments, LLC, d/b/a City Inn Hotel fail to remove the murals, the Department of Transportation, or its contractor, will remove the murals without further notice and the cost of removal is hereby assessed against Malibu Lodging Investments, LLC, d/b/a City Inn Hotel, pursuant to Section 479.07(8)(d), Florida Statutes.[8] Petitioner currently has a lease agreement with Anheuser-Busch (Lease Agreement), pursuant to which it receives rental income for displaying murals advertising Anheuser-Busch products on the exterior of the Hotel.9 This is a critical revenue source for Petitioner. According to Petitioner's President, Judah Burstyn, without the wall mural revenue it receives, Petitioner would have to close the Hotel and file for bankruptcy. As part of the Lease Agreement, Anheuser-Busch has "occupie[d] space in the [Hotel]." Initially, the space it occupied was used just for "storage."10 Subsequently, it set up a "satellite [office] location" at the Hotel. The record is devoid of any persuasive competent substantial evidence that any Anheuser-Busch product, including Bud Light, Landshark Lager, or Beck's Beer, is now, or was at any time material to the instant case, sold, produced, manufactured, or furnished on the premises of the Hotel. At the time of the issuance of Notice Number T144MB, a mural advertising Bud Light covered the east exterior wall of the Hotel. This mural was replaced (on or before April 22, 2009) by a mural advertising Landshark Lager, which, in turn, was taken down (on June 17, 2009) and replaced (on or about June 24, 2009) by the mural now covering the east exterior wall. This mural advertises Beck's Beer. Like its predecessors, it is unpermitted, is within 660 feet of the edge of the right-of-way of I-95, and can be seen without visual aid by motorists of normal visual acuity traveling on I-95. The Department has not carried out the threat it made in Notice Number T144MB that, if the mural on the east exterior wall of the Hotel was not removed by Petitioner within 30 days of August 20, 2008, the mural would "be removed and disposed of by the Department without further notice" and "all costs associated with the removal [would] be assessed against the sign owner." More than a full year has passed since the issuance of Notice Number T144MB and an unpermitted mural (albeit one advertising a different Anheuser-Busch product) still covers the east exterior wall of the Hotel.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order finding that the Mural on the east exterior wall of the City Inn Hotel is an illegal sign subject to removal pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 25th day of August, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The outdoor advertising sign that is the subject of the instant proceeding (hereinafter referred to as the "Sign") is a billboard with steel "I" beams and iron stringers which sits perpendicular to U.S. Highway 1 approximately 1,800 feet south of Hypoluxo Road and approximately 1,000 feet north of Neptune Drive in Palm Beach County. Petitioner has owned the Sign since about 1978 or 1979, when it purchased the assets of the Sign's previous owner, Outdoor Media. The Sign was originally erected in 1963 by Ferrin Signs, Inc., pursuant to a permit issued by Palm Beach County. In 1967, Ferrin Signs, Inc., obtained a permit from Palm Beach County to perform further work on the sign. Shortly thereafter, Ferrin Signs, Inc., sold the Sign to Outdoor Media. Prior to March of 1970, the land on which the Sign is located was in the unincorporated area of Palm Beach County. In March of 1970, the land was annexed by the Town of Hypoluxo and has been within the Town's jurisdictional boundaries ever since. The Town of Hypoluxo has an ordinance currently in effect that regulates signs within the Town. The ordinance, like its predecessors dating back to 1961, prohibits "off premises signs." It also contains a section dealing with "nonconforming signs," which provides as follows: Signs or sign structures made nonconforming by this sign and signage code shall be governed by the following regulations: A sign existing within the town on or before November 30, 1992, which, because of its height, square foot area, location or other characteristics, does not conform to this article is hereby declared to be a nonconforming sign. A nonconforming sign under this subsection may be allowed to remain in existence, but if destroyed or allowed to deteriorate in excess of 50 percent of the depreciated value of the structure, it may not be replaced. The status afforded signs under this section shall not be applicable to any sign for which no sign permit was ever issued; such signs are deemed illegal signs and are subject to the provisions of this article governing illegal signs. No conforming sign or sign structure shall be permitted to be erected for the same property containing an existing nonconforming sign until the nonconforming sign has been removed or made conforming. An "off premises sign" that does not qualify for "nonconforming sign" status is subject to removal under the ordinance. The Town also has a building code. Under the code, a building permit is required before a sign within the Town may be altered or repaired. No building permit has ever been issued by the Town for any work to be performed on the Sign. On December 27, 1990, the Department issued a Notice of Violation alleging that Petitioner was maintaining the Sign without a state-issued outdoor advertising sign permit, as required by Section 497.07, Florida Statutes. In response to the Notice of Violation, Petitioner advised the Department that it would be filing an application for such a permit. Petitioner filed its application on January 12, 1993. The application was accompanied by, among other things, a copy of the 1963 Palm Beach County permit referred to in Finding of Fact 3 above. The application package, however, contained neither a permit for the Sign issued by the Town of Hypoluxo, nor a statement from any Hypoluxo official indicating that the Sign was eligible for such a permit or was otherwise allowable under the Town's sign ordinance. Accordingly, after receiving the application package, the Department contacted the Mayor of the Town, the Honorable Al Merion, to ascertain the Town's position on the matter. In conjunction therewith, it provided Mayor Merion with a copy of the 1963 Palm Beach County permit that had accompanied Petitioner's application. By letter dated January 25, 1993, Mayor Merion responded to the Department's inquiry. In his letter, he wrote: Receipt is hereby acknowledged of your fax transmittal containing a permit issued by Palm Beach County to the Ferrin Signs, Inc. on January 24, 1963. The permit issued by Palm Beach County is not valid because it is not within their [sic] jurisdiction to issue sign permits for property lying within the territorial boundaries of the Town of Hypoluxo. To the best of our knowledge, the Town of Hypoluxo has no record of a permit being issued to Ferrin Signs Inc. It should be noted that, in the past years, on numerous occasions, the billboard in question has been illegally constructionally altered by virtue of no permit having been obtained from the Town. On or about February 2, 1993, the Department returned Petitioner's application to Petitioner. In the Memorandum of Returned Application that it sent to Petitioner, the Department gave the following reason for denying the application: "local permit not provided for Town of Hypoluxo." Although the Town no longer contends that Palm Beach County was without authority to issue the 1963 pre-annexation permit for construction of the Sign, the Town still takes the position that, because of unpermitted post- annexation repairs and alterations, the Sign is prohibited and subject to removal under the Town's current sign ordinance. 1/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a state outdoor advertising sign permit. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of January, 1994. STUART M. LERNER 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 4th day of January, 1994.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether six outdoor advertising sign permits previously issued to Petitioner should be reinstated; or, if not, whether new permits should be issued for the six advertising facings (two on each of three sign structures) in Clearwater, Florida.
Findings Of Fact In June 1982, National lawfully erected an outdoor advertising billboard structure with two advertising facings located adjacent to State Road 60, 0.5 mile east of U.S. 19, pursuant to permit number 6868 issued by the City of Clearwater (the City), on October 22, 1981, and pursuant to state sign permit numbers AF604 and AF605 issued by DOT on November 18, 1981. In January 1983, National lawfully erected an outdoor advertising billboard structure with two advertising facings located adjacent to State Road 60, 0.4 mile east of U.S. 19, pursuant to permit number 10406 issued by the City on October 15, 1982, and pursuant to state sign permit numbers A1288 and A1289 issued by DOT on December 20, 1982. On or about July 1, 1984, National lawfully erected an outdoor advertising billboard structure with two advertising facings located adjacent to State Road 60, 0.3 mile east of U.S. 19, pursuant to permit number SN - 24060117 issued by the City on June 6, 1984, and pursuant to state sign permit numbers AM631 and AM632 issued by DOT on January 12, 1984. National maintained the three outdoor advertising billboard structures, containing six advertising faces, as identified in Findings of Fact numbers 1, 2 and 3, above (the "subject sign structures"), in the same condition as they were when erected. Following the lawful erection of the subject sign structures, National paid DOT the required annual permit fees through the year 1995, which allowed National to maintain and operate the subject sign structures through December 31, 1995. In March of 1995, DOT notified National that it was dropping state sign permit numbers AF604, AF605, A1288, A1289, AM631, and AM632 from its inventory because DOT had no jurisdiction over the segment of State Road 60, east of U.S. 19, adjacent to which the subject sign structures were located. The evidence was that DOT did so by serving on National a "Notice of Violation," citing DOT's lack of jurisdiction. The "Notice of Violation" gave National the opportunity to request an administrative hearing to contest DOT's action. National had no reason to question DOT's position on the jurisdictional issue but rather relied upon DOT's determination that DOT did not have jurisdiction in March of 1995. National chose not to request a hearing. The evidence was not clear as to when the DOT lost, or believed it lost, jurisdiction; the evidence also was not clear whether the DOT ever had, or believed it ever had, jurisdiction. At the time DOT dropped state sign permit numbers AF604, AF605, A1288, A1289, AM631, and AM632 from its inventory, DOT did not refund any permit fees to National, including the permit fees which National had paid for the 1995 calendar year. Consequently, permit numbers AF604, AF605, A1288, A1289, AM631, and AM632 were fully paid through December 31, 1995. On November 2, 1995, the section of State Road 60, east of U.S. 19, along which the subject sign structures are located became part of the National Highway System (NHS), and became jurisdictional for the purpose of permitting outdoor advertising billboard structures. On August 26, 1996, Kenneth M. Towcimak, as Director of DOT's Office of Right of Way, issued a memorandum to all District Outdoor Advertising Administrators addressing implementation of outdoor advertising control over roadways which were previously uncontrolled by DOT, and which became designated as part of the NHS on November 28, 1995. The Towcimak memorandum of August 26, 1996, required notification by registered mail, with return receipt requested, to all owners of such outdoor advertising billboard structures, that they must obtain state permits by January 1, 1997. There was no evidence as to whether DOT ever notified National by registered mail, with return receipt requested, that National was required to obtain state permits by January 1, 1997, for the subject sign structures. National filed six applications for the subject sign structures on or about December 29, 1997 (one for each of the two sign facings on each sign structure). On the part of the forms asking for the location of the sign, the six applications described the location of the signs, respectively, as: "Reinstated State Tag # AF 604-10"; "Reinstated State Tag # AF 605-10"; "Reinstated State Tag # AM 631-10"; "Reinstated State Tag # AM 632-10"; "Reinstated State Tag # AI 288-10"; and "Reinstated State Tag # AI 289-10." The applications contained copies of the permits previously issued by DOT for the operation and maintenance of the subject sign structures, copies of Landowner's permission and copies of City building permits for the original construction of the sign structures. Although the applications included copies of the City building permits for the original construction of the sign structures, DOT knew that the City no longer considered the sign structures to be legal under the City's code. In 1989, the City amended its code to place limitations on the size (height and area) and concentration (one per lot) of signs in the locations of the subject sign structures. The subject sign structures exceeded at least some of the new limitations; however, the code amendment provided for a seven-year "amortization" period, until January 19, 1996, during which the signs would be permitted as legal, non-conforming signs. At the end of the "amortization" period, the signs no longer were legal under the City code. Some of the information on National's six applications was incorrect or incomplete. But all of the incorrect or incomplete information could easily have been remedied, and "incorrect information" is not the real basis upon which DOT gave notice of intent to deny the applications. The real basis for the notice of intent was the illegality of the sign structures under the City code. On or about November 22, 1999, National filed with DOT a Petition for Reinstatement for each of the three signs (each petition seeking reinstatement of the two permits for the two advertising facings for each sign structure) under Section 479.07(8)(b)1-3, Florida Statutes (1999). On January 31, 2000, DOT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Petition for Reinstatement as to each of the three such petitions filed by National.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Department of Transportation enter a final order denying National's petitions for reinstatement and National's applications for new sign permits. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 3rd day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Aileen Reilly, Esquire Livingston & Reilly, P.A. Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kelly A. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Attention: James C. Myers Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the permit for sign installation previously issued by the Department of Transportation is still valid to authorize Petitioner’s sign located on State Road 60 in Pinellas County.
Findings Of Fact The parties entered into two stipulations of fact which are accepted and incorporated herein. Stipulation of Fact #1 reads: The off-premise outdoor advertising billboard structure located at 2815-2817 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida, owned by Allan J. Stowell was lawfully erected under the applicable provisions of the City’s ordinances in the fall of 1981. The City issued building permit number 6361D, dated September 3, 1981, to Stowell to erect the billboard in issue. On August 25, 1985, the City of Clearwater adopted sign regulations which required, among other things, uniformity among signs. City Code Section 44.55(3)(b), required that all billboards on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, east of Highland Avenue, be brought into conformance with the Code provisions by January 19, 1996. On January 19, 1989, the City adopted Ordinance No. 4753-88, regulating signs on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Pursuant to that ordinance, the billboard in issue became non-conforming due to its size. Mr. Stowell was allowed a seven-year amortization period which expired on January 19, 1996. By letter dated August 30, 1994, the City advised Mr. Stowell that the billboard in issue would have to be brought into compliance with the provisions of the City’s sign ordinance by January 19, 1996. As a result of the sign regulations adopted by the City in 1985, the billboard in issue was classified thereafter as a legal non-conforming sign, and it was such on November 25, 1995. Stipulation of Fact #2 reads: State Road 60 means that segment of roadway, also known as Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, which is located within the City of Clearwater and is east of Highway 19. The effective date of the national highway system was November 28, 1995, and all references in stipulated exhibits, stipulations, transcripts of depositions, correspondence or other documents which erroneously refer to November 25, 1995, shall be amended to read November 28, 1995, for the purposes of this administrative proceeding. Any reference in this administrative proceeding to the “subject sign,” “billboard,” “off-premise outdoor advertising structure,” “sign,” or other similar designations shall mean the off-premise outdoor advertising billboard structure owned by the Petitioner and located at 2815-2817 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (State Road 60). On May 22, 1974, State Road 60 was designated a Federal- Aid Primary. On July 1, 1976, State Road 60 was re-designated from a Federal-Aid Primary to a Federal-Aid Urban. Allan J. Stowell was licensed by the Florida Department of Transportation as an outdoor advertiser pursuant to license number 19848, dated October 2, 1981. On or about October 1, 1981, Allan J. Stowell was issued state sign permit numbers AF307-10 and AF308-10, by the Florida Department of Transportation, for the construction, maintenance and operation of the two sign facings on the subject billboard structure. At this point, State Road 60 was not part of the Federal-Aid Primary Highway System within Florida. After 1988, the Department discontinued billing Mr. Stowell because State Road 60 was not a Federal-Aid Primary, Interstate, or a part of the State Highway System outside a municipality. State Road 60 became a part of the national highway system on November 25, 1995. Petitioner, Allan J. Stowell, purchased the property on which the sign in issue is located in 1972. At that time, a sign owned by Foster and Kleiser (F&K), an outdoor advertising firm, was situated on the property. After Petitioner purchased the property, he entered an amended lease agreement with F&K for the use of his property. At that time, the existing sign was permitted by the state. Subsequent to the execution of the amended lease, because he wanted to develop the land and put up his own sign, Mr. Stowell requested that F&K remove their sign from his property, and an agreement to do that was received on August 3, 1981. During his research in preparation for the request for removal, Mr. Stowell spoke with Mr. Andre DeVetter of the Brandon office of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. DeVetter advised him the sign was located adjacent to a Federal Aid Primary Highway, that the property on which the sign was to be located was properly zoned for that purpose, that after removal of the existing sign, Stowell could apply for and receive a permit for a new sign, and that under the terms of the Federal Highway Beautification Act (the Act), Mr. Stowell could not be required to take the sign down without compensation therefor. Based on these assurances, Petitioner borrowed $35,000, placing his home as collateral for the loan, which he used for the construction of the new sign. Before starting construction, however, Mr. Stowell went to the City of Clearwater for both a permit for the construction and a variance to exceed the normal size limitations because his proposed sign was to be bigger than the code calls for by more than 100 square feet. He requested and obtained a permit to construct a 10 by 40-foot sign. The variance was initially denied by the city’s sign approval board, but a subsequent action by the Board of Adjustment granted the variance. Though the minutes of the pertinent meeting of the Board of Adjustment cannot now be found, Mr. Stowell has a letter dated August 21, 1997, from DOT in which the Department agrees that a variance was granted. He also obtained an occupational license to conduct the outdoor sign business. Mr. Stowell constructed the new sign which was permitted by the Department as promised in 1982. He thereafter obtained renewals of the permits for the sign from DOT for calendar years 1983 and 1984 - one for each face. Over the succeeding years, Mr. Stowell did not receive annual renewal notices for the years 1985, 1986, or 1987, and the fees for those years were not initially paid. However, he received a letter in 1988 indicating he was delinquent in certain costs and fees for the permits. When he received that letter, Mr. Stowell sent in a check for the delinquent costs and fees in the amount of $308.00, which covered all delinquent permit fees and a 10 percent delinquency penalty, and believed his delinquencies had been brought current. The Department issued permits to Mr. Stowell for the sign in 1981 and 1982. After the delinquencies were brought current in 1988, Mr. Stowell did not hear anything further from the Department, other than the previously mentioned letter, which noted the sign was now on the Federal Highway System and he needed to obtain permits for it. Since he had previously been issued permits for the sign in 1981 and 1982, and since he had never received any notice that those permits had been revoked, he mistakenly believed his status was acceptable. When Mr. Stowell received the variance from the city for the 14 by 48-foot sign prior to its installation, he advised Mr. DeVetter at the Department’s Brandon office of its granting and was told his status was acceptable. After the City later sent him a letter indicating that the sign had to come down due to a change in the City ordinance, instead of planning to amortize the cost of the sign over the succeeding seven years, he started research into what he needed to do to obtain compensation for the taking as is required by the FHBA. In response, he received a copy of a certificate of sign removal from Reginald N. Millian, the Department’s Outdoor and Property Advertising Inspector, indicating that the sign had been removed by the owner, and that this determination was made based on a personal visit to the site. This was patently in error. The sign had not been removed and, in fact, had been operated and maintained, structurally unchanged, continuously since its construction in 1981. After the Department advised Mr. Stowell of his delinquency in permit fees in September 1988, even after the fees were paid up, due to the change in jurisdiction status, the Department inactivated his permits for this sign, dropped his permit numbers from its permit billing inventory, and did not issue and further billings to him for the previously issued permits. However, the Department did not issue a notice of intent to revoke the two permits, AF307-10 and AF308-10, nor did it in any way advise Mr. Stowell that his permits were no longer valid. Mr. Stowell mistakenly assumed that his sign was validly permitted, even after the City notified him of its status in 1994. After the Department reassumed jurisdiction, by letter dated June 21, 1996, the Department’s District Administrator, Property Management/ODA, Susan L. Rosetti, advised Mr. Stowell that his sign was not permitted and that the sign’s two faces required permits. At this point Mr. Stowell was provided with application forms for the permits and a set of instructions. After receipt of the June 21, 1996, letter, Mr. Stowell contacted Kenneth M. Towcimak, the Director of the Department’s Office of Right-of-Way, to request assistance in obtaining the required permits. In response, Mr. Towcimak advised Mr. Stowell that the permits had been inactivated by the Department, and that because State Road 60, on which the sign was located, was now under the Department’s jurisdiction, he had to obtain a new state permit by January 1, 1997. Towcimak contacted the City to determine the appropriate status of the sign, and as a result of this inquiry, advised Stowell in writing on November 6, 1996, that the Department was precluded by Florida Statute from approving any application for a permit which was not accompanied by a statement from the appropriate local government that the sign complies with all local government requirements, and that the local government will issue a permit upon approval of the application by the Department. Thereafter, On December 31, 1996, Mr. Stowell filed an application with the Department by certified mail. The document reflects it was date stamped in the Department on January 1, 1997, at 4:31 p.m., and again on January 3, 1997, at 1:07 p.m. Since the application Mr. Stowell filed was to reinstate the previously issued permits and not for new permits, he failed to complete a number of the information blocks on the form. On January 21, 1997, the Department issued a Notice of Denied Application for the permits to Mr. Stowell. The denial form reflected the reason for denial was that Mr. Stowell had failed to provide proof of ownership of the billboard, and had provided incorrect information on the application form. The evidence of record indicates that Mr. Stowell did provide the requested proof of ownership of both the billboard and the property on which it is located in his application. One of the City’s previously existing sign ordinances was declared unconstitutional by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on March 23, 1993. Since that time, the City has not enacted a comprehensive sign ordinance, but in 1989 it enacted an ordinance, No. 4753-88, which relates to signs located on SR 60 and which requires those signs on that road which are non- conforming to be brought into conformance or removed within seven years. This provides affected sign owners an opportunity to either bring the sign into conformity with the requirements or amortize the cost of the sign over seven years. Mr. Towcimak, Director of the Department’s Office of Right-of-Way, indicated that when the national highway system under ISTEA came into effect in November 1995, the Department had no inventory of existing signs. As a result, it did not provide notice to the owners of effected signs, and instructed its district offices to accept applications for sign permits through January 1, 1997. The operations of the Department of Transportation are decentralized with policy being set at the headquarters, but the day-to-day operations being determined at each of the eight districts. As to outdoor advertising enforcement, however, while each district handles enforcement, accounting is handled in the central office. In doing so, the Department follows the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, which specifies that all permits expire on January 15 of each year. In practice, the advertiser is billed by October 1 of each year and is furnished a list of all permits shown by the Department records to be held by that permittee, along with a bill for all fees owed. If the Department records do not reflect an active permit for a particular sign, no billing will go out for that sign. Petitioner’s instant application for permit reflects it was timely received in the pertinent Department office. It is general practice within the Department for the District Outdoor Advertising Administrator to review the application and decide whether to grant or deny the permit. Thereafter, the application is forwarded to the central office for final check prior to issuance of the metal tag. It is Department practice to issue or deny the permit within 30 days of receipt of the application, as mandated by statute. When an application for a permit for an outdoor sign is received by the Department it is agency practice to review it for completeness. If the application is complete, a decision is made whether to approve or disapprove the application. If the application is incomplete, it is returned to the applicant without decision. However, if an application is incomplete, but it is apparent that, even if complete, the application would not be approved, that application will be returned “denied” rather than “incomplete.” There are several requirements which must be satisfied before an application may be approved. One of these is that the applicant submit a statement from the local government that the proposed sign would comply with local sign regulations, as required by Section 479.07(3)(b), Florida Statutes. If an application is received by the Department without this element being present, the Department may either return the application as incomplete or, if it appears the sign does not comply with local sign regulations, deny the application. The “Harmony of Regulations” provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, prohibits the state from issuing a permit where local government does not approve the sign, and prohibits local governments from issuing a sign permit where the Department does not approve. Consistent with that direction, when Petitioner contacted Mr. Towcimak to request guidance in the permitting process, and outlined his problem regarding the City’s position, Mr. Towcimak contacted the City to find out where that entity stood. On two separate occasions, the City advised the Department in writing that Petitioner’s existing sign was illegal and it would not grant permission for the Department to issue a sign permit. When that information was received by the Department, Petitioner was advised of the City’s position and that the permit would not be issued as a result.
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 permits for the maintenance of the signs in issue, and denying compensation for their removal. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Livingston & Associates, P.A. Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: Diedre Grubbs 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether the billboard structure owned by Petitioner, National Advertising Company, located adjacent to U.S. 1/State Road 5, at mile marker 87.5, City of Islamorada Village of Islands, Islamorada, Monroe County, Florida, is in violation of the provisions of Rule 14-10.007, Florida Administrative Code, or Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the testimony of witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the owner and operator of an outdoor advertising sign ("billboard") located adjacent to U.S. 1/State Road 5, at mile marker 87.5, City of Islamorada Village of Islands, Islamorada, Monroe County, Florida. In the immediate area of where the billboard's location, U.S. 1/State Road 5 is a U.S. Federal Aid Primary Highway, over which Respondent has jurisdiction. The billboard is permitted pursuant to state sign permit numbers AS788 and AS789. The billboard is 570 feet from the nearest permitted billboard. Respondent considers the billboard to be nonconforming because it is not in compliance with the current spacing requirements on the Federal Aid Primary Highway System. In 1984, the spacing of billboards on Federal Aid Primary Highways changed from 500 feet to 1,000 feet. When the spacing requirements changed, there was a savings provision in Subsection 479.07(9)(c), Florida Statutes (1984), that allowed signs that were conforming in 1984 did not become nonconforming because of the change in the spacing requirement. The billboard was permitted on August 26, 1986. Petitioner's Application for Outdoor Advertising Sign Permit, Tag No. AS788, indicates that the billboard is "500+" feet from the nearest permitted sign and that the method of marking site is that it was an "existing sign," which suggests that the billboard existed prior to the subject permit. If the billboard was built in 1986, it should not have been permitted because the spacing requirement in 1986 was 1,000 feet. This permit information is based upon a document produced as a result of a statewide billboard inventory prepared by a subcontractor of Respondent. There were mistakes in the statewide inventory. Tag numbers AS788 and AS789 could be original tags or replacement tags. The billboard was a ten-foot by 40-foot structure with a two-foot by 38-foot A frame; five poles; and six stingers horizontal made by two-foot by six-foot by 20-foot lumber. On July 21, 2001, a storm came through the City of Islamorada Village of Islands, which caused the five vertical poles that held the billboard erect to be broken. As the storm blew through, the upper structure of the billboard was blown over and rested on the ground. The upper structure of the billboard suffered little damage; importantly, the structural members of the billboard, with the exception of the five vertical poles, were intact and could be reused. Petitioner was prevented from re-erecting the billboard by the City of Islamorada Village of Islands. On June 18, 2002, Petitioner and the City of Islamorada Village of Islands entered into an agreement that allowed Petitioner to remove the billboard and avoid a fine in the amount of $100.00 per day. The value of the structural materials in the billboard immediately prior to the July 21, 2001, storm was $1,353.60. The cost of materials to repair the billboard immediately after the July 21, 2001, storm was $536.50. The replacement materials constitute 39.7 percent of the value of the materials in the sign prior to the storm damage. The only new materials needed to re-erect the billboard are the five vertical poles.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Transportation, issue a final order rescinding its Notice of Violation and allowing Petitioner, National Advertising Company, to re-erect its billboard at the same location and in the same configuration as previously permitted. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 14th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Ann Cowles, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Livingston & Reilly, P.A. Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Stop 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Stop 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
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.
