Findings Of Fact Two signs advertising Buena Vista Motel and located in the vicinity of said motel are located in the right-of-way of Highway US 1. The location of these signs was fixed by a survey conducted by a Florida registered land surveyor with reference to official Department of Transportation right-of-way maps developed from the official court records of property ownership.
Recommendation Having shown the subject signs to be in violation of Section 479.11(6), Florida Statutes, the Department of Transportation should give the owner of the signs 30 days to remove the signs. If the signs are not removed within that time period, the Department should remove the signs from its right-of-way. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John Guntkowski c/o Buena Vista Motel, Inc. 2396 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050 Paul N. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether proposed Rule 14-10.0052 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes,1/ for the reasons described by Petitioners in their Petition.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts The proposed rule was the subject matter of a rule development workshop on May 20, 2002, at 10:00 a.m. at the Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida. The proposed rule was the subject matter of a public hearing on December 18, 2002, at the same location. The proposed rule was the subject matter of another public hearing held on April 3, 2003, at the same location. The proposed rule was the subject matter of a publication under Section III of the Florida Administrative Weekly on September 19, 2003, wherein the rule was published in its final proposed form. Petitioner Florida Outdoor Advertising Association is a trade association comprised of billboard companies operating within the State of Florida who (i) are engaged in the "business of outdoor advertising" as that term is defined in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes; (ii) are licensed as outdoor advertising companies pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes; (iii) are directly regulated by the provisions of Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code; and (iv) are companies whose substantial interests will be affected by the proposed rule. Petitioners Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.; Koala Outdoor; The Lamar Company, L.L.C.; and Viacom Outdoor, Inc., d/b/a National Advertising Company are billboard companies who (i) are engaged in the "business of outdoor advertising" as that term is defined in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes; (ii) are licensed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes; (iii) are directly regulated by Chapter 14- 10, Florida Administrative Code; and (iv) are parties whose substantial interests will be affected by the proposed rule. The State of Florida, Department of Transportation (hereinafter "the Department"), is the state agency responsible for adopting the proposed rule. Petitioners are all qualified to do business within the State of Florida, are Florida taxpayers, and have participated in the entire rule adoption process, as set forth above, either directly or by and through their authorized representatives, agents, or attorneys. The Petition filed on behalf of Petitioners was timely filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.56(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The text of the proposed rule as published in its final form in the Florida Administrative Weekly on September 19, 2003, is as follows: 14-10.0052 Comprehensively Enacted Zoning and Zoning Enacted Primarily to Permit Signs. 'Comprehensively Enacted Zoning' means ordinances or other laws adopted by the county or municipal government with authority over the development and use of a parcel of land, pertaining to and designating the currently allowable uses on the parcel, pursuant to and consistent with a comprehensive plan enacted in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The term does not include actions taken primarily to permit signs as defined in section (3) of this rule. For the purposes of this rule, 'parcel' shall mean all the contiguous lands under the same ownership and the same land use designation adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Department shall consider the following criteria when determining whether commercial or industrial zoning applicable to a parcel of land was adopted primarily to permit the erection or maintenance of signs: Whether the uses allowed by the applicable zoning ordinance or law include commercial or industrial uses in addition to signs. The following uses are not recognized as commercial or industrial use for the purpose of these criteria: Agricultural, forestry, ranching, grazing, farming, or related activities, including wayside fresh produce stands. Transient or temporary activities. Railroad tracks and minor sidings. Communication towers. Electric transmission, telephone, telegraph, or other communications services lines. Ditches, sewers, water, heat, or gas lines. Pipelines, tanks, or pumps. Fences. Drainage ponds or water retention facilities. Canals. Roads. Signs. Whether the size of the parcel would be sufficient to conduct the commercial or industrial uses allowed on the parcel under the applicable county or municipal government building and development code requirements for commercial or industrial activities, including setback requirements, parcel size and dimension requirements, and parking requirements. Whether the parcel is located contiguous to other properties zoned or used for commercial or industrial activities. Whether there is public access to the parcel sufficient to conduct the commercial or industrial uses allowed on the parcel. Whether the public statements and materials published in connection with any zoning decision affecting the parcel, including all public records pertaining to the zoning decision, indicate the zoning decision was taken primarily to permit the erection or maintenance of signs. Specific authority 334.044(2), 479.07(10) FS. History-New. Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record History of the Rule The Department is the state agency responsible for administering state and federal law governing the placement of outdoor advertising signs along the highways of the state. DOT is charged with enforcing Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, in concert with federal law and regulations, as well as an agreement between the State of Florida and the United States Department of Transportation referenced more specifically below. On January 27, 1972, the State of Florida and the United States Department of Transportation entered into an agreement (the agreement) for carrying out the federal law known as the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (the Act). The Act, which is codified at 23 U.S.C. section 131, requires states to achieve and exercise effective control of outdoor advertising in areas adjacent to the Interstate highways and the federal-aid primary highway systems. The predominant focus of the Act is that signs located within a certain distance of Interstate and federal-aid highways should be located in areas that are commercial or industrial in nature. Failure to maintain such effective control may result in an annual penalty of ten percent of the federal highway funds apportioned to the state. There was a major rewrite of Florida law relating to outdoor advertising in 1984 in an effort to come under compliance with the agreement as well as with federal law and regulations. As part of that legislative undertaking, the language of Subsection (10) of Section 479.07(10) was enacted. Section 7, Chapter 84-227, Laws of Florida. The language of that subsection, which is referenced in the publication of the proposed rule as the law implemented, has not changed since its enactment in 1984. The last sentence of the subsection requires the Department to adopt rules within 180 days after the effective date of act, "which shall provide criteria to determine whether such zoning is comprehensively enacted or enacted primarily to permit signs." In response to this Legislative mandate, the Department adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0051 in 1986. That rule was entitled, "Zoned and Unzoned Commercial and Industrial Areas along Interstate and Federal- Aid Primary Highways." Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0051 was the last effective rule on the subject matter of the proposed rule until its repeal in approximately 2000. The Department describes the repeal of the rule as "inadvertent." John Garner is the manager of production and program operations for the Office of Right-of-Way for the Department. His duties include policy-level involvement regarding outdoor advertising. According to Mr. Garner, the Department chose not to simply re-adopt its previous rule on the subject because it believed the old language was somewhat vague and should be more specific. The Department began working on the proposed rule which is the subject matter of this dispute in late 2000 or in 2001. Mr. Garner attended numerous meetings wherein the text of the rule was discussed and participated at one of public hearings on the proposed rule. Through the rule development process, the initial proposed language was significantly modified to address comments and concerns raised by Petitioners and others. During the process of developing the proposed rule, the Department considered a number of matters, including the comments received during the rule workshops, guidance and comment it has received over time from the Federal Highway Administration concerning federal regulations, information received from the Department of Community Affairs, and an examination of approaches taken by other states in addressing similar matters. Other statutory considerations Chapter 163 A year after the enactment of Section 479.07(10), the 1985 Florida Legislature enacted the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. This legislation substantially revised and expanded Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (1985), regarding growth management. That legislation mandated a comprehensive planning process requiring each local government in the state to plan comprehensively for growth and development. Each local government is required to prepare a comprehensive plan which will govern land use in the jurisdiction. A part of that comprehensive plan is a future land use map which designates all property within a jurisdiction for a use consistent with future land use categories that are provided for in the comprehensive plan, e.g., commercial or residential. The future land use map must be consistent with the other parts of the comprehensive plan. After a comprehensive plan has been adopted for a jurisdiction, the local government must implement that plan through the adoption of land development regulations, including zoning. Any such regulations must be consistent with the comprehensive land use plan so that there is a comprehensive system of planning, regulation, and zoning. It is common practice in this state to include within the implementing regulations a comprehensive zoning ordinance which is then applied to all of the property within the jurisdiction resulting in a zoning map showing zoning districts. A zoning ordinance would list currently permissible uses in the zoning districts. Comprehensive plans are subject to amendment not more than twice a year. Zoning regulations may also be modified or amended by local governments, but must remain consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are a few jurisdictions in Florida which have land development regulations but do not have zoning ordinances in place. The Department deems land use control actions taken pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, to be zoning that is comprehensively enacted for the purposes of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Sign Permits Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, generally requires the issuance of a sign permit by the Department before the erection of signs along state highways, the federal aid primary system, and the Interstate highway system. This section also authorizes the Department to prescribe an application form for such permits. The application form for an outdoor advertising permit contains information about what is proposed to be constructed and where an applicant proposes that it be constructed. The application also contains a section that reads, "To be completed by appropriate zoning official." This section contains information on the future land use designation and current zoning of the proposed location under the local government's comprehensive plan and land development regulations. The form also contains a section entitled, "Local Governmental Permission" in which a local government official indicates whether or not the outdoor advertising sign identified in the application is or is not in compliance with all duly adopted local ordinances. Once the local government zoning official certifies that the proposed sign identified in the application is in compliance with the comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, the Department does not go behind that certification to look factually at whether the zoning action was consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Department uses the application and the information contained therein to determine whether a proposed sign location falls within the definition of a "commercial or industrial zone." If it does, then the Department determines whether those designations were adopted as part of the local government's comprehensive planning effort or were primarily adopted to permit outdoor advertising signs on that location. The Department examines the intent surrounding a particular zoning decision on a case-by-case basis.
Findings Of Fact The outdoor advertising sign which is the subject of this proceeding has been erected on a small parcel of land located approximately one-quarter of a mile west of First Street on Rockland Key, next to the southbound lane of U.S. 1, in Monroe County, Florida. This location is outside the city limits of any municipality. On approximately October 1, 1983, Mr. Frank Toppino, who is not a party to this proceeding and who was not presented as a witness at the hearing, leased the subject property to the Pier House Inn and Beach Club for one year. Under the terms of this lease, the Pier House Inn received the right to use the property for an outdoor advertising structure which the parties to the lease contemplated would be constructed there. The Pier House agreed to pay the sum of $950 to Mr. Toppino as rent for the year. In addition, the Pier House agreed to undertake construction of the sign on the land for the benefit of Mr. Toppino, the lessor, after the lease expires. The PIER House received the right to use this land for one year, and the right to place advertising copy of its choice on the face of the outdoor advertising structure for one year. The lease between Mr. Toppino and the Pier House Inn covering the subject property was received in evidence. This lease, and the testimony of the general manager of the Pier House Inn who executed it as lessee, which is detailed above, supports a finding of fact that Mr. Frank Toppino and not the Pier House was the owner of the outdoor advertising structure which is the subject of this proceeding on October 1, 1983. Subsequently, when the Department's Outdoor Advertising Administrator made his inspection of the subject sign, there was no state outdoor advertising permit affixed thereto, and the Department has not issued any permit for this structure. The sign was erected between two other permitted signs, and it is closer than 500 feet to both of these existing and permitted structures. The sign which is the subject of this proceeding is located adjacent to a federal- aid primary highway outside any incorporated city or town. It is visible from U.S. 1, and it is within 660 feet of the edge of the pavement of this highway. The Department's Outdoor Advertising Administrator made a determination that the Pier House Inn was the owner of the sign in question based upon information contained in a Monroe County Building Permit application, and based upon the hearsay information received during telephone conversations. However, this information is controverted by the direct testimony of the general manager of the Pier House Inn which is itself corroborated by the lease between Mr. Toppino and the Pier House which is in evidence. Thus, the testimony received from the Department's witness is not of sufficient quality to support a finding of fact that the Pier House Inn is the owner of the sign in question. Moreover, the Department has the burden of proof on this issue, and the quantity and quality of the evidence presented on the matter of ownership of the subject sign does not carry this burden.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the violation notice issued on December 12, 1983, to the Pier House Inn and Beach Club, be dismissed, without prejudice to the reinstitution of proceedings in which the violation notice is directed to the actual owner of the sign in question. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 23rd day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 H. Ray Allen, Esquire 618 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent's sign permits should be revoked on the basis that the permit location is not within an unzoned commercial or industrial area as required by the foregoing provisions of the statutes and rules.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 8, 1982, Branch's Outdoor Advertising filed applications for two sign permits to allow erection of an outdoor advertising sign in Jackson County, Florida. The sign is located on the north side of I-10 approximately 1.92 miles east of State Road 69. The sites applied for were field-inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, were approved and the Department issued the permits numbered AI33-10 and AI34-10 for the requested location. When the entity known as Branch's Outdoor Advertising submitted the application for the permits, it designated thereon that the proposed location was in a commercial or industrial unzoned area within 800 feet of a business and that the signs to be erected would meet the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The business which is located within 800 feet of the Respondent's sign is known as "Branch's Garage" Branch's Garage is located in a large tin shed which is used as a storage shed for farm equipment by Mr. Branch. Mr. Branch is a farmer as well as the operator of the welding and automotive repair business which is located in that same tin building. A portion of that building is visible from the main traveled way of Interstate 10. Branch's Garage is the only business located within 800 feet of the Respondent's-sign. Mr. Branch maintains two signs on or in the vicinity of his building advertising Branch's Garage and Welding Shop. The signs and the parked cars and vehicles associated with the business are, in part, visible from I-10. Mr. Jack Culpepper, the Petitioner's "Right-of-Way Administrator", was given the specific assignment of attempting to "reestablish effective control of outdoor advertising in the third district" in approximately the Summer of 1983. Mr. Culpepper had no direct knowledge of and had not inspected the vicinity of the sign in question prior to that time. In 1984, shortly before the Notice to Show Cause in question was issued, Mr. Culpepper did inspect the area and arrived at the belief that no commercial activity was occurring at the site known as Branch's Garage. Mr. Culpepper acknowledged that during his inspection, while driving down Interstate 10 in the vicinity, might not have noticed commercial activity which might have been going on at Branch's Garage. Mr. Culpepper acknowledged that, outdoor advertising regulatory personnel in the third district had adopted a more strict enforcement policy and interpretation. of the foregoing legal authority at issue in 1984 than had been the case in 1982 when the sign was permitted. In essence, that change in interpretation embodied a policy of not permitting, or seeking to revoke, permits for signs for unzoned commercial activity areas or locations when the commercial activity upon which the permits were predicated was not visible from the main traveled way of I-10, as opposed to the situation in 1982 whereby permits were issued if a commercial activity was present within 800 feet of a sign, without consideration of whether the commercial activity was visible from I-10. Mr. Branch conducted his welding and auto repair business known as Branch's Garage during the time in question in 1982 when the permits were issued at the site in question (the tin building). He also was conducting that activity during 1984 including the time when the Notice to Show Cause was issued. Mr. Branch is a farmer and uses the tin building in question for both businesses. Mr. Branch derives a part of his livelihood from the automobile repair and welding business. The on-premise signs located at Branch's Garage are visible from I-10. The applications for the outdoor advertising permit submitted by Branch's Outdoor Advertising were subjected to a field inspection as to the proposed site by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector on October 13, 1982. That inspector had been employed by the Department for some twelve years at the time. In connection with his duties involving enforcement of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14.10, Florida Administrative Code, he had adopted a basic procedure for inspection of sign sites applied-for, which included actual inspection of the proposed site and, if the proposed site was in an unzoned area, ascertaining that there was an unzoned commercial activity present within 800 feet of the sign site. The inspector had made prior inspections of the site. As a result of those prior inspections he had already issued permits to another sign company authorizing the erection of a sign within the same vicinity based upon the unzoned commercial activity known as Branch's Welding and Garage. Based upon his field inspection in connection with the Branch's Outdoor Advertising applications in question, this inspector approved the applications, resulting in the issuance of the permits in question. The inspector had not been provided with rules or guidelines which would assist him in identifying and determining whether a commercial activity was present at the time of his inspection. He was required to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis, given the relevant statutory provisions, his experience, and instructions by his superiors, as to what would qualify as a commercial activity. Based upon the activities he observed being conducted at Branch's Welding and Garage, he concluded that there was sufficient legal basis for issuance of the permits. Upon issuance of the outdoor advertising sign permits to Branch's Outdoor Advertising, Mr. Branch erected a sign on his property which was improperly located and violated the spacing requirements between it and a sign known as the "Fuqua sign" which had previously been erected within the vicinity of his business. The incorrect location of Branch's sign created an enforcement problem for the Department's outdoor advertising personnel. In order to resolve that conflict with Mr. Branch, the owner of Branch's Outdoor Advertising, the inspector took an agent and representative from Tri-State Systems, Inc., Mr. Matt Fellows, to the site and identified the permits for Mr. Branch's sign as being legal permits. The inspector advised Matt Fellows that the sign was improperly located and suggested that Tri-State purchase Mr. Branch's permits and build a properly located sign at that vicinity location for which the permits had originally been issued. Based upon the information and suggestion from the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, the Respondent contacted Mr. Branch and made arrangements to purchase the sign permits in question. After consummating the purchase, it constructed a sign in question at the location authorized by the permits. The purchase of the permits and the subsequent erection of the sign was done in reliance upon the directions, information and suggestions from the Department's outdoor advertising inspector. The Notice of violation issued October 3, 1984, to Respondent's assignor, Branch~s Outdoor Advertising, was issued at the behest of Mr. Jack Culpepper, the Right-of-Way Administrator for the Department's Third District on or about September 27, 1984. Mr. Culpepper determined to issue the notice of violation based upon his formal inspection of the area immediately prior to that date, whereupon he concluded that the permits had been issued in error in 1982. Mr. Culpepper had no personal knowledge of whether any commercial activity was being conducted at the subject location in 1982, but relied on what had been reported to him by other third district personnel. The inspector who had personally inspected the property in 1982 had been satisfied that an unzoned commercial activity was occurring a proper distance from the sign site and his immediate supervisor had agreed with that interpretation which resulted in the permits being issued. Because of the change in interpretation of the foregoing statutory authority concerning sign permits in the Department's third district to a more strict interpretation, as delineated above, the Notice to Show Cause was issued against Respondent's assignor on October 3, 1984.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the petition by the Department of Transportation against Tri-State Systems, Inc. should be dismissed and that Tri-State Systems, Inc. should be permitted to retain the permits referenced above. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of October, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 28th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting in its entirety with the competent substantial evidence of record. Rejected for the same reason except for the last sentence which is accepted in so far as it demonstrates the reason for issuance of the Notice of Violation. Accepted, although this proposed finding of fact is not material, relevant nor dispositive of the material issues involved in this case. Accepted, although, as to its last sentence this proposed finding of fact is not material or relevant to a disposition of the material issues presented. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not in and of itself dispositive of the material issues presented in that it is immaterial to disposition of those issues. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Copies furnished: Maxine P. Ferguson, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 A. J. Spalla, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building ============================================================ =====
The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of Chapter 449; Section 335.13, F.5.; Section 339.301, F.S.; and the federal and state rules and regulations by erecting a sign approximately twenty-five (25) feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way of State Road 20 (U.S. 27) without a permit from Petitioner Florida Department of Transportation.
Recommendation Dismiss the Petition. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 L. C. Morehead, Jr. Space Center Campground Route 2, Box 66-K7 Titusville, Florida 32780 Don Simmons, Executive Director Florida Campground Association, Inc. P.O. Box 10084 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Frank Whitesell P.O. Box 1089 Lake City, Florida Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact By Advertising Sign Permit dated March 4, 1985 (Exhibit 3), Clear Vu Media was authorized to locate a sign with both east and west facing boards on State Road 52, 2- 1/2 miles east of Plaza Drive (Little Road). The permit was issued by Linda K. Brown, outdoor advertising inspector for DOT. Prior to issuing the permit Brown visited the proposed site and approved the location as meeting the requirements for an outdoor advertising sign. Subsequent to the erection of the sign Brown inspected the sign and found the sign to be located on a site other than the approved site. The existing structure is located 890 feet from another existing and permitted sign. The approved site is located at least 1,000 feet from this existing sign and from any other permitted sign along State Road 52. State Road 52 is a federal-aid primary highway. A Notice of Hearing was sent to Clear Vu Media, Post Office Box 2038, New Port Richey, Florida 33552, by U.S. Mail and was not returned as undelivered.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns land adjacent to, west of, and within 600 feet of Interstate 95 in Port St. Lucie County, Florida. The land comprises approximately 17.7 acres and is not within the city limits of a municipality. The land is designated commercial in the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the County. The zoning designation was changed on March 27, 1990, for one half acre of the land approximately 2000 feet north of Okeechobee Road. The zoning designation for that half acre was changed from Commercial to Commercial General pursuant to Resolution 90-80. The purpose of the change in zoning designation, as stated in Petitioner's Petition for Change to the Official Zoning Atlas of St. Lucie County, was to permit the construction of an advertising billboard. The change in zoning designation obtained by Petitioner was necessary to permit the location of a sign on Petitioner's half acre. No ordinance or other local regulation defines the uses permitted for land designated in the County's Comprehensive Plan as Commercial. 1/ The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners for St. Lucie County explained in a letter dated February 6, 1991, that the zoning designation of Commercial allows and encourages the application of the Commercial General zoning designation. The letter did not state that a change in zoning designation from Commercial to Commercial General was unnecessary in order to permit the location of a sign on Petitioner's half acre. Petitioner elected to apply to the County for a change in zoning designation from Commercial to Commercial General, and the County approved Petitioner's application. Petitioner applied for a sign permit on July 3, 1990. Respondent denied Petitioner's Application For Outdoor Advertising Sign Permit on July 26, 1990, on the ground that the change in zoning designation for one half acre of the land was enacted specifically for billboards in violation of Section 479.07(10), Florida Statutes. 2/ The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners determined in his letter dated February 6, 1991, that Respondent's determination of "spot zoning" is invalid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for a sign permit be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of April, 1991. DANIEL MANRY 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 Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Marilyn Bethel owns Tract B of Unit 3 in Indian River Estates in St. Lucie County, Florida [hereinafter referred to as the Property]. On or about May 14, 1988, Bethel entered into a lease agreement with Respondent. The agreement, which was signed by Bethel and Respondent's Secretary Treasurer, Richard Pozniak, provided as follows: The undersigned lessor, his [sic] heirs or assigns, in consideration of the annual sum of TWELVE HUNDRED (1,200) Dollars paid by AD-CON OUTDOOR ADV., INC., its heirs or assigns, hereafter known as Lessee, hereby grants to it or assigns the exclusive right to use and occupy the premises known as, [the Property] space for a south facing sign[,] for the purpose of constructing and maintaining advertising displays and devices, including necessary equipment for a period of Year to Year years from 6/1/88 19 . First option to lease both North and South facing locations will be granted to the Lessee by the Lessor for the above mentioned location at the termination date of the Lease drawn between the Lessor and National Outdoor Adv due to expire in [sic] April 1, 1989, for an additional 1,200. Total due will be $2,400. It is further agreed: In the event said property is to be improved by the erection of a permanent building, the agreement may be cancelled by giving sixty (60) days written notice to the Lessee prior to the commencement of construction. If the title passes from the present owner, this agreement may be cancelled by giving sixty (60) days written notice to the Lessee. In either case, the Lessee shall be refunded all unearned prepaid rental. The right is given to the Lessee to cancel this agreement by giving sixty (60) days written notice if the advertising value of the premises is diminished by any law or regulation, obstruction of view, or change of traffic. The Lessor agrees not to obstruct, nor to permit any other person to obstruct, the view of the advertising displays or devices constructed on said premises in any manner whatsoever. In the event this agreement is terminated before the end of its term (or the renewal thereof) the Lessor agrees to refund to the Lessee all unearned prepaid rental. It is understood that all display or necessary equipment placed on above property by Lessee is at all times its property and subject to its removal at any time. After the term (or renewal thereof) of this agreement, it will continue in force from year to year unless terminated by either Lessee or Lessor or[sic] written notice to the other, served not less than sixty (60) days before the beginning of such additional year. Lessor grants to lessee, or agents, the right to ingress or egress during the term of this contract to maintain sign structure(s). This agreement is subject to Lessee securing a building permit for said display. Payment is to be made upon securing building permit. The foregoing agreement was drafted by Respondent. Respondent prepared the agreement by adding the underscored language to a printed, form "Outdoor Advertising Structures and Display Lease" that it routinely utilizes in such transactions. On or about June 20, 1988, Respondent submitted an application for an outdoor advertising sign permit for the south facing sign referenced in the above-described lease agreement. Permit AY 242-35 was subsequently granted to Respondent by Petitioner. By letter dated January 9, 1989, from Respondent's attorney, Respondent informed Bethel that it sought to exercise its option "to lease both North and South facing locations," as provided in their agreement. By letter dated January 24, 1989, Bethel, through her attorney, gave "notification to [Respondent] pursuant to the Lease that it will be terminated on May 31, 1989." The letter was received by Respondent on January 25, 1989. On or about May 1, 1989, Bethel sent Petitioner a letter advising that Respondent would "not have a lease for the billboard [which is the subject of permit AY 242-35] after May 31, 1989." Based on the information provided by Bethel, Petitioner initiated action to revoke permit AY 242-35 on the ground that Respondent no longer had "the property owner's permission to maintain signs at the subject location."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, its hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's permit AY 242-35. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of November, 1989. 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 6th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3807T The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioner: Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected. The Hearing Officer is of the view that the agreement is not vague and ambiguous regarding Bethel's right to terminate her agreement with Respondent in the manner prescribed by the agreement's termination clause. In any event, to the extent that there may an ambiguity in the agreement concerning this matter, any such ambiguity should be resolved in favor of Bethel's right to terminate the agreement inasmuch as the agreement was drafted by Respondent. See Finlayson v. Broward County, 471 So.2d 67, 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). COPIES FURNISHED: Rivers H. Buford, Jr., Esquire Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Garrison M. Dundas, Esquire Swann and Haddock, P.A. Southeast Bank Building 300 South Sixth Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Richard J. Pozniak Ad-Con Advertising Company Post Office Box 541 Fort Pierce, Florida 34954
The Issue Whether the sign which was located at the northwest corner of US #41 and State Road 862, 50 feet west from US #41 on Vanderbilt Road, with the copy "La Playa Motor Inn" and "La Playa Motor Inn", found there on October 8, 1975, continuing through February 19, 1976 was in violation of the following: Chapter 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, which requires a permit for the erection of a sign. Chapter 478.07(7), Florida Statutes, which requires the name of owner or advertiser be affixed to the face of the sign structure. Chapter 479.02(2), Florida Statutes, which sets forth certain requirements of spacing.
Findings Of Fact At a time prior to October 8, 1975, Seminole Vanderbilt Corporation, which trades as La Playa Motor Inn and is owned by P. M. Francoeur, sole owner and president, leased a sign from Richard O. Radenbaugh. This sign was located in the vicinity of the northwest corner of US #41 and State Road 862, 50 feet west from US #41 on Vanderbilt Road. Subsequent to the time that the sign was leased to the Seminole Vanderbilt Corporation, Richard O. Radenbaugh entered into a contract to sell the space and the sign to the Department of Transportation. The sale was effected and the sign was removed. P. M. Francoeur, as President and leaseholder on the sign was not told that the subject sign would be sold, prior to the negotiations and sale between Mr. Radenbaugh and the Department of Transportation. Consequently, the original sign with the copy "La Playa Motor Inn" was removed without his knowledge; Mr. Francoeur went to a County Commissioners meeting in Collier County, Florida and Mr. Radenbaugh spoke with Mr. Francoeur at that time and promised to give him a vacant sign which had the copy "King Crown Inn". This sign was located immediately west of the "La Playa Motor Inn" former sign. Mr. Francoeur accepted that offer and caused workmen to go to the location and to remove the "King Crown Inn" sign and have it refurbished for purposes of installation at the general location of the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. When this refurbishing and site location was accomplished, it left two signs in the area that originally had three signs. There was now, an unrelated sign and the new "La Playa Motor Inn" sign which had been constructed from the former "King Crown Inn" sign; as opposed to, the unrelated sign, the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign which had been sold to the Department of Transportation and removed, and the "King Crown Inn" sign which was in the immediate area west of the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. Mr. James A. Hachett, outdoor advertising inspector with the Department of Transportation, was aware that the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign had been sold and removed. When he went by the subject location after the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign had been sold and removed, he discovered that a new sign with the copy "La Playa Motor Inn" had been erected in the general area where the original "La Playa Motor Inn" had been located. He also noted that the "King Crown Inn" sign was no longer located in a position west of the space which had been occupied by the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. In addition, the new "La Playa Motor Inn" sign was not in the exact location as the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. On a closer examination, Mr. Hachett discovered that there were three identifying permit tags affixed to the new "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. One tag was the permit tag from the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign, and the other two tags were from the sign west of the location, which sign was the "King Crown Inn" sign. These former permit tags were affixed to each side of the double faced advertising sign. It was after this examination that the "La Playa Motor Inn", in the person of P. M. Francoeur was notified of the prospective violations as ultimately alleged in the October 8, 1975 complaint. Francoeur was notified by an alleged violation statement addressed to the Seminole Vanderbilt Corporation, which owns "La Playa Motor Inn". As of February 19, 1976, at the time of the hearing, the new "La Playa Motor Inn" sign which is in fact the refurbished structure which was the "King Crown Inn" sign, located west of the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign, is still standing in the general, but not exact position of the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. Application for permit by the Seminole Vanderbilt Corporation t/a "La Playa Motor Inn" for the benefit of the copy, "La Playa Motor Inn" has not been applied for since the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign was sold to the Department of Transportation and removed. Application has been made for a renewal of the permit which is associated with the "King Crown Inn" sign which was refurbished and became the subsequent "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. In describing the location of the new "La Playa Motor Inn" sign, it is somewhere between the location of the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign and the "King Crown Inn" sign, but not in the exact location of either of those original signs.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner afford the Respondent 30 days within which to remove the sign or take satisfactory steps to obtain a permit for the sign, after which time the Petitioner, in accordance with Chapter 335.13(2), Florida Statutes, shall cause such sign to be removed. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operation Mr. P. M. Francoeur, President Department of Transportation c/o La Playa Motor Inn 605 Suwannee Street 9091 Gulf Shore Drive Haydon Burns Building Naples, Florida 33940 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
