The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent?s Outdoor Advertising Permits should be revoked pursuant to section 479.08, Florida Statutes, because the associated sign has not remained substantially the same, has been disassembled and re-erected, or has been destroyed, as set forth in the Amended Notice of Intent to Revoke.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation regulates outdoor advertising signs located in proximity to the State Highway System, the Interstate, and portions of the Federal-aid Primary System. Green?s Wrecker Service, begun in 1947, was one of the first wrecker services in Alachua County. Mr. Allen Green was the owner and operator. There was no precise testimony as to when Mr. Green first erected the advertising sign at issue here, but Mr. Green?s daughter, Pamela, vaguely remembered that happening: Well, I was seven or eight years old. I remember Daddy and Grandpa going down there after they opened up the road. It was woods there and we used to play on our bikes and I remember my Grandmother coming out and sitting beside the road because she was scared we was gonna get onto 301 because it was always woods back there before, and we could ride and we didn?t have her bothering us, you know. So when the woods got cleared out to 301, then, you know, Granny was sitting out there and daddy and grandpa went down there and done something, put that sign up, I guess. Based upon Pamela?s current age and her recollection, it can be roughly calculated that the sign was put up over 40 years ago. It is a small sign, about three feet by six feet, and has the words “Green?s Garage” in red letters and a smaller “Pennzoil” logo in yellow, along with a large arrow pointing toward the business. The sign sits at the intersection of US Highway 301 and 165th Avenue, the business being located about a hundred yards down 165th Avenue. The sign is important to the business because, due to the trees, one cannot see the actual building or cars at the business location from US Highway 301 until one is already at the 165th Avenue intersection, where one can finally see them through the area that has been cleared out for the road. Mr. Green turned the business over to Pamela before he died, and she has operated the business ever since. She subsequently married Mr. Gary Keen. Mrs. Pamela Green Keen incorporated the business as “Green?s Garage and Wrecking Service, Inc.” There was no evidence as to when the subsequent provision of state law or local ordinance with which the sign fails to comply was passed, but the parties stipulated that the sign is nonconforming, so it is clear that the sign was lawful when erected but could not be put up today. The sign was permitted as a wooden sign with a back-to- back configuration and two supports. That configuration has never changed. The sign was assigned tag numbers BE893 and BE894 by the Department. These tags look like small license plates that are posted on the sign and must be visible from the main travel-way. Mr. Tom Simmons is a senior outdoor advertising inspector for Cardno TBE Consultants (Cardno TBE), a contractor for the Department. Cardno TBE manages the outdoor advertising program for the State of Florida. Mr. Simmons has been employed with them for 12 years, and, before that, performed a similar job for four years with the Department. Mr. Simmons oversees 16 counties in northeast Florida, including Alachua County. Mr. Simmons was very credible in his testimony. Mr. Simmons testified that he was aware of the sign: In the due process of traveling from point A to point B on 301, I had seen it before. Like I stated earlier, after you have been out here a long time like I have, when structures disappear and go away, you pick up on it because it?s something that you are looking for constantly. On September 7, 2011, Mr. Simmons took a picture of the sign. It was down on the ground and was not erect. Mr. Keen testified that shortly before this, he had been having problems with vandals. The windshield of his tow truck had been shattered by a man whose car had been towed to Green?s Garage. That man was caught and ultimately paid restitution. A vehicle had also been stolen from Green?s Garage in June, and Mr. Keen or his wife had requested increased sheriff?s patrols at the business address in August, as evidenced by records from the Alachua County Sheriff?s Department. Mr. Keen testified that people often became upset when their cars were towed and that some were vindictive and would resort to vandalism. He said it was an unavoidable consequence of the business, since he towed cars for the Sheriff?s Department and the Florida Highway Patrol. Mr. Keen testified that he goes down 165th Avenue to US Highway 301, right past where the sign is located, almost every day. His testimony that the sign was not down for more than a day is accepted. Mr. Keen?s first action was to look for signs as to who had knocked it down, but he could not find any evidence such as cigarette butts, or cans, or footprints, so he decided it would do no good to call the police. Mr. Keen re-erected the sign. He did not have to reassemble or add to the materials on the sign in any way, since it was still intact. He just put it back up. The Department issued its original Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit for Violation, dated October 26, 2011, alleging that the sign had been abandoned. Respondent denied this in its response to the Department and requested an administrative hearing. The Department did not request an administrative law judge within 15 days of Respondent?s request. Green?s Garage and Wrecker Service is substantially affected by the Department?s intended action to revoke the permits for the sign. If the permit is lost, the sign must be taken down and no new sign can be erected. Almost a year later, on October 18, 2012, Mr. Simmons took a picture of the sign which showed that it was back up in its original location. He testified that it appeared to be the same sign, constructed of the same materials as before. On March 28, 2013, the Department issued Green?s Garage an Amended Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit for Violation, alleging violations of three different provisions of the rules. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the sign remained substantially the same as it was on the date it became nonconforming. Even if it was determined that the sign did not remain substantially the same simply because it was down for a day or two, simply re-erecting the sign when no assembly or construction was required constituted reasonable repair and maintenance of the sign. The sign was never disassembled throughout the time relevant to this proceeding. Less than 60 percent of the upright supports of the sign were physically damaged at any time relevant to this proceeding. One pole was not damaged at all; the other had only very minor damage. The minor damage to one pole was not such that the normal repair practices of the industry would call for that pole?s replacement. Respondent never had an intention to abandon or discontinue the sign at any time relevant to this proceeding. The facts did not show that the sign structure ceased to exist. All the interrelated parts and material -- including the beams, poles, and stringers -- which were constructed for the purpose of supporting or displaying the message remained completely intact and never ceased to exist as an integrated structure.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the Amended Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit for Violation and allow the outdoor advertising permits to continue. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 30th day of July, 2013.
The Issue Whether the signs of Respondent, Cannon Motel, should be removed for violation of Chapter 499, Florida Statutes, improper setback and no permit to erect the signs.
Findings Of Fact Cannon Motels, Inc. was served with a violation notice on October 18, 1976. The alleged violation was that the Cannon Motel signs were in violation of the state statute inasmuch as they had been erected without first obtaining a permit from the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, and they violate the setback requirements of Chapter 479. Petitioner, by certified letter dated November 11, 1976, requested an administrative hearing. Respondent moved to continue the hearing on the grounds of improper venue, lack of jurisdiction and failure by Petitioner to follow the technical rules. The motion was denied for the reason that the venue was proper being in the district in which a permit for an outdoor advertising sign must be obtained; the Hearing Officer has jurisdiction under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the parties were fully advised of the issue to be heard. The subject signs each read "Cannon Motel." One is located one-half mile west of State Road 85 facing Interstate 10 and the other is located 1.3 riles east of State Road 85 facing Interstate 10. The sign east of State Road 85 is 30 by 12 and is approximately 18 feet from the nearest edge of the right of way. The sign that is west of State Read 85 is approximately 38 feet from the nearest edge of the right of way. Both signs were erected within 660 feet of the federal aid primary road without applying for or securing a permit from the Florida Department of Transportation. At some time prior to the hearing but after the erection of the signs, the area in which the sign located west of State Road 85 was erected was annexed by Crescent City, Florida. That area in which the signs are located is unzoned by the city and zoned agriculture by Okaloosa County.
Recommendation Remove the subject signs within ten (10) days of the filing of the Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James E. Moore, Esquire Moore and Anchors Post Office Box 746 Niceville, Florida 32578
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the stipulations of fact entered into by the parties and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The two signs and four sign faces (hereinafter, the signs) which are the subject of these proceedings are owned by the Respondent and are outdoor advertising signs as defined in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. One sign is located on U.S. 1, 1.35 miles north of Industrial Road, Big Pine Key (DOAH Case Numbers 86-2294T and 86- 2295T) and the other sign is located on U.S. 1, 1.25 miles north of Industrial Road, Big Pine Key (DOAH Case Numbers 86-2296T and 86-2297T) The Respondent purchased the signs from the Daley Outdoor Advertising Company in 1984. The signs are adjacent to and visible from U.S. 1 in Monroe County. U.S. 1 or State Road 5, is a federal-aid primary highway. U.S. 1 was open for public use at the time the notices of violation were placed on the signs. All of the signs are located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of U.S. 1, State Road 5. The area in which the signs are located is zoned "GU". Mr. William Kenney is employed as the outdoor advertising administrator for the Department of Transportation, District VI. On May 29, 1986, Mr. Kenney inspected the signs and noticed that neither of the signs had a state outdoor advertising permit tag attached. At that time, Kenney placed a notice of violation on each sign face. After placing the notice of violation stickers on the signs, Kenney examined the Department of Transportation's office records pertaining to outdoor advertising signs and found no evidence of permit tags having ever been issued for the signs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued declaring that the signs involved in these cases are illegal and must be immediately removed. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of January, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Charles C. Papy, III, Esquire 201 Alhambra Circle Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue What final agency action should the Department of Transportation take on Petitioner's Application for Outdoor Advertising Permit.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The proposed sign that is the subject of the instant controversy (Proposed Sign) is located off of I-95 in the City of Miami (City) at 328-334 Flagler Street on a parcel of land leased by Petitioner from CanPartners Realty (CanPartners Parcel). Section 10.4.5 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.4.5), which has been in effect since 2002, prohibits "new signs of outdoor advertising," except in limited circumstances. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: For the purposes of this section, "Outdoor advertising signs" are signs used in the conduct of the outdoor advertising business; an outdoor advertising business, for the purpose of this section, is defined as the business of receiving or paying money for displaying signs where the sign copy does not pertain to the use of the property, a product sold, or the sale or lease of the property on which the sign is displayed and which does not identify the place of business as purveyor of the merchandise or services advertised on the sign. Except as otherwise provided in Articles 4 and 10 and/or the City Code, or, pursuant to this subsection, no new freestanding "Outdoor advertising signs," as defined above shall be allowed. * * * Notwithstanding any provision of this Zoning Ordinance to the contrary, permits for outdoor advertising signs may be issued pursuant to a Settlement Agreement authorized by Resolution passed by the City Commission, in conjunction with the settlement of related litigation, which expressly authorizes issuance of such permits for said outdoor advertising signs, and then only under the terms and conditions of settlement agreements that result in a net reduction in the party to the settlement's number of outdoor advertising signs located in the City of Miami. . . . The City has entered into "Settlement Agreements" of the type described in the last paragraph of Section 10.4.5 with three sign owners: Carter Pritchett Hodges, Inc., d/b/a Carter Outdoor Advertising, Inc.; Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. d/b/a/ Clear Channel Outdoor; and Intervenor. The City does not have a such a "Settlement Agreement" with Petitioner. The City entered into its Settlement Agreement with Intervenor (City/CBS Settlement Agreement) on July 18, 2008. The City/CBS Settlement Agreement contains the following provisions, among others: 4. Amended Permits. In recognition of CBS's [Intervenor's] removal of the numerous Sign structures and Sign faces described in this Agreement and waiver of just compensation thereof, the City will amend a maximum of 15 existing sign permits (the "Amended Permits") to allow CBS to transfer the permit rights associated with such Signs to new locations with a maximum of two (2) Sign faces each on the terms and conditions set forth below: The City will amend up to a maximum of 15 permits for Signs based on CBS's removal of Signs on a two for one basis: for every two bulletin faces removed, one bulletin face may be erected with an Amended Permit. . . . * * * c. Upon application by CBS showing compliance with the provisions of this paragraph, the City will amend existing Sign permits to allow the transfer of permit rights associated with such Sign or Signs to locations within the same or a less restrictive Zoning District. For all Initial Amended Permits and Amended Permits, CBS will submit FDOT Form 575-010-04 to the City, which will be stamped on the date received. The City's signature on the FDOT Form 575-010-04 shall constitute approval of the location of the sign, and no further approvals from the City shall be required. All Sign permits will be processed "first in, first out," such that no other FDOT Forms may be signed or authorized for a subsequent application which would interfere with the location secured by a previously approved FDOT Form 575-010-04. If an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature, the City's approval will become null and void for that particular application. * * * 19. Miscellaneous. * * * f. Assignments/Binding Nature. This Agreement will be binding upon and will inure to the benefit of the any successor or permitted assigns of the parties hereto. CBS shall have the right of assignment of rights and obligations under this Agreement. However, no attempted assignment by CBS will be valid unless: (1) the assignee shall execute an Agreement to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to accept all of the rights and obligations of CBS under this Agreement; and (2) the assignment is approved in writing by the City Commission, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. The parties acknowledge that the City Commission shall have the right to reject proposed assignment if the assignee does not fully adopt the terms of this Agreement. Any such assignment shall not relieve CBS of its obligations under this Agreement . . . . Any attempted assignment in violation of this Section shall be void. In anticipation of the finalization of the City/CBS Settlement Agreement, Intervenor (through Joseph Little) and Petitioner (through Harkley Thorton) had signed, on May 1, 2008, a Letter of Understanding (LOU) "set[ting] forth the understanding between [Intervenor] and [Petitioner] concerning new sign locations to be utilized in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement between [Intervenor] and the City of Miami." The first numbered paragraph of the LOU explained: CBS is negotiating and attempting to finalize a Settlement Agreement with the City whereby the City will issue 15 amended permits for the construction of new monopole signs with double faces, on expressways located within the City, in return for which CBS will remove 2 existing (or previously removed) sign faces for each new sign face constructed pursuant to an Amended Permit, subject to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement between CBS and the City. Paragraph 2 of the LOU read, in pertinent part, as follows: With respect to the Settlement Agreement with the City, CBS and OM [Petitioner] agree as follows: * * * Under the Settlement Agreement, CBS seeks to obtain 7 Initial Amended Permits (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) one of which is tentatively agreed to be located in Jose Marti Park. Provided there is no term in the Settlement Agreement and the City does not otherwise require CBS to develop a site in the Jose Marti Park, CBS will abandon its proposed Jose Marti Park site and instead accept a site owned by Brickell Land Development Company, located at approximately 300 SW 8th Street (the "Brickell Site"), which is or will be subject to a lease with OM that allows construction and operation of a sign in accordance with the terms of paragraph (2c) below. . . . Provided OM obtains four (4) additional sites for placement of signs pursuant to Amended Permits under the Settlement Agreement, CBS agrees to accept said four sites provided CBS deems each site to be commercially viable. . . . For each of the sites accepted by CBS, CBS will enter into a sub-lease agreement with OM, whereby OM will be the sub-lessor and CBS will be the sub-lessee. . . . Provided that OM produces the Brickell Partners Site and four (4) additionally Commercially Viable Locations, CBS will assign the rights to one (1) of its amended permits under the Settlement Agreement with the City. CBS will assign to OM, and OM will assume, CBS's rights and obligations under the Settlement Agreement to said amended permit except for CBS'[s] obligations pursuant to paragraphs (7a-7d), (8a), and (12a). CBS will provide for the removal of two (2) of its existing sign structures to allow the City to issue the said Amended Permit to OM under the Settlement Agreement. * * * h. CBS'[s] acceptance of the four (4) Commercially Viable Locations referenced in 2c above is expressly conditioned upon the City's approving all locations on Exhibits B and B-1, as amended from time to time, as appropriate removals for Amended Permits in the Settlement Agreement. The penultimate paragraph of the LOU (Paragraph 6) provided as follows: This letter is a Letter of Understanding and binding between the parties and establishes the major business points and conditions of the Parties' agreement for this transaction. However, it is not all inclusive in that it does not contain all the deal points. The Parties agree to expand upon this Letter of Understanding in good faith to prepare a full agreement that can be executed within thirty (30) days of the date of this Letter of Understanding. Such agreement shall be consistent with the terms of this Letter of Understanding and contain such further terms and conditions as are mutually acceptable to the Parties. However, the failure of the Parties to complete a full agreement shall not invalidate the terms of this Letter of Understanding or excuse either Party from performing its obligations and responsibilities as set forth herein. The record is devoid of evidence that Intervenor and Petitioner ever executed a "full agreement," as contemplated by paragraph 6 of the LOU. Intervenor has not executed (pursuant to Paragraph 2e. of the LOU), nor has the City Commission approved (pursuant to Paragraph 19f. of the City/CBS Settlement Agreement), any assignment to Petitioner of Intervenor's rights under the City/CBS Settlement Agreement (although Petitioner believes that it is entitled to such an assignment and has so argued in circuit court litigation in which it is currently involved with Intervenor). On May 2, 2008, Intervenor (through Mr. Little) sent a letter to the City, which read as follows: CBS Outdoor, Inc. [Intervenor] and Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC [Petitioner] have signed a letter of understanding dated May 1, 2008 (The "Agreement"). Please accept this letter as confirmation that in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, CBS Outdoors, Inc. consents to Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC filing Applications for Outdoor Advertising Permits with the Florida Department of Transportation on our behalf. Thereafter, Petitioner submitted to the City's Zoning Administrator, Lourdes Slazyk, (on the version of FDOT Form 575- 010-04 then in effect) Petitioner's Application, requesting that Ms. Slazyk complete and sign the "Local Government Permission" section of the form. Obtaining such "Local Government Permission" is among the prerequisites for receiving an outdoor advertising sign permit from the Department. To erect an outdoor advertising sign in the City after the Department issues a permit, a City building permit (which is "something other than" the "Local Government Permission" referred to above) is required. Ms. Slazyk completed and signed the "Local Government Permission" section of the form, as requested, on May 22, 2008. It was not until almost a year later that Petitioner's Application was submitted to the Department. In completing the form, Ms. Slazyk checked the box indicating that the "outdoor advertising sign identified in this application: [was] in compliance with all duly adopted local ordinances and has been or will be issued the necessary permits." She did so based upon her understanding that the application (which named Petitioner as the applicant) was actually being filed by Petitioner on behalf and with the consent of Intervenor (in accordance with Mr. Little's May 2, 2008, letter) and that Petitioner was "traveling under" the City/CBS Settlement Agreement. Had Intervenor not notified the City that Petitioner was, with Intervenor's consent, "filing Applications for Outdoor Advertising Permits with the Florida Department of Transportation on [Intervenor's] behalf," Ms. Slazyk would not have checked the "compliance" box on the form, given the requirement of Section 10.4.5 of the City's Zoning Ordinance that "permits for outdoor advertising signs" may be issued only "pursuant to a Settlement Agreement" of the type described in Section 10.4.5 (to which Petitioner, unlike Intervenor, was not a party). On August 28, 2008, Intervenor (through Mr. Little) sent a letter to the City, which read as follows: CBS Outdoor, Inc. herewith withdraws its blanket letter of consent dated May 2, 2008 authorizing the City to approve FDOT application forms by Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC on our behalf. A copy of that letter is attached. Henceforth, any FDOT outdoor advertising application form submitted to the City by Outlook must include a specific authorization from CBS Outdoor indicating our approval and authorizing the City to process the FDOT form pursuant to our Settlement Agreement with the City. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. By letter dated October 24, 2008, Intervenor (through its attorney, Glenn Smith, Esquire), advised the City, among other things, that it was "withdraw[ing]" certain applications for outdoor advertising sign permits from the Department, including Petitioner's Application, that either it or Petitioner, on Intervenor's behalf, had previously submitted to the City to obtain the "Local Government Permission" required for such a Department permit. On February 13, 2009, Petitioner (through its attorney, Amanda Quirke, Esquire) sent a letter to Ms. Slazyk, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: As you are aware, under Section 4(c) of the CBS Settlement agreement with the City of Miami, the City's approval of a location becomes null and void if an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature on FDOT Form 575-070-04. In addition, FDOT requires local government approval within 6 months of the application to FDOT. Therefore, Outlook Media is requesting the renewal of the approval of the City of Miami for the following locations: * * * CanPartners Realty * * * Applications are attached for each one of the aforementioned locations. Please stamp the attached applications received today, and advise when we can pick up the stamped received copies for our files. Thank you for your assistance. Intervenor had not authorized Petitioner to make such a request on Intervenor's behalf. Accordingly, (through Mr. Smith) it sent Ms. Quirke the following letter, dated February 18, 2009: As you are aware, this firm represents CBS Outdoor, Inc. ("CBS"). This letter is submitted in response to your February 13, 2009, letter to Lourdes Slazyk at the City of Miami ("City") seeking the approval of the City of the Renewal Applications. CBS has issued no authorization to OM [Petitioner] to submit the Renewal Applications to the City. Therefore, the February 13, 2009 Letter is ultra vires, and OM is directed to withdraw same. If OM desires to obtain CBS's authorization to process the Renewal Applications to the City, OM is directed to submit to CBS a written request for authorization to do so. OM's written request for authorization should address, among other things, the following: CBS's original authorization to OM to submit the FDOT Application to the City was to authorize OM to make submissions on behalf of CBS. Please confirm that any submission of Renewal Application by OM to the City will likewise be on behalf of CBS. Many questions remain relative as the various locations identified in the February 13, 2009, Letter as to whether the locations are "commercially viable." See Attachment A hereto. Please contact the undersigned to schedule a meeting to discuss resolution of these remaining questions. Can Partners Realty: As you know, the City has agreed to approve the Lummis Site. Therefore, the CanPartners Realty site is no longer under consideration and is not to be renewed. OM is hereby specifically directed to take no action to renew the FDOT Application for this site. CBS and its representative are available to discuss the February 13, 2009 Letter, the Renewal Applications and the contents of this letter. If OM desires to discuss same, please contact the undersigned for that purpose. That same day (February 18, 2009), Intervenor (through Mr. Smith) also sent a letter to Ms. Slazyk, in which it stated the following: As you are aware, this firm represents CBS Outdoor, Inc. ("CBS"). This letter is being sent to you on behalf of CBS in response to the February 13, 2009 Letter to you from counsel for OM. In the February 13, 2009 Letter, counsel for OM requests approval by the City of Miami (the "City") of the Renewal Applications under the CBS Settlement Agreement with the City. Please be advised that CBS has not authorized OM to present the Renewal Applications to the City. Therefore, CBS requests that the City take no action on the Renewal Application until the City receives further communications regarding same from CBS. Notwithstanding Intervenor's directive (communicated in its February 18, 2009, letter to Ms. Quirke) that "the CanPartners Realty site . . . not . . . be renewed," on that same date (February 18, 2009), Petitioner (through Ms. Quirke) sent a follow-up letter to Ms. Slazyk, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: In accordance with the request of CBS, please accept this revised request for the renewal of the outdoor advertising applications, originally submitted on February 13, 2009. This revised request is a clarification that Outlook is requesting the renewal of the approval of the following applications on behalf of CBS. As you are aware, under Section 4(c) of the CBS Settlement agreement with the City of Miami, the City's approval of a location becomes null and void if an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature on FDOT Form 575-070-04. In addition, FDOT requires local government approval within 6 months of the application to FDOT. Therefore, Outlook Media of South Florida, on behalf of CBS, is requesting the renewal of the approval of the City of Miami for the following locations: * * * CanPartners Realty * * * Applications are attached for each one of the aforementioned locations. Please stamp the attached applications received today, and advise when we can pick up the stamped, received copies for our files. Thank you for your assistance. The following day, February 19, 2009, Ms. Slazyk wrote back to Ms. Quirke, stating the following: I am in receipt of a faxed letter with back up from your office dated February 13, 2009 and faxed again, as modified, dated February 18, 2009 requesting renewal of certain outdoor advertising signs. I am informing you that, per the attached letters from CBS, and their representatives, the request is not authorized. Petitioner appealed Ms. Slazyk's denial of its renewal request to the City Zoning Board, which upheld the denial. Petitioner thereafter took a further appeal to the City Commission, but Petitioner subsequently withdrew this appeal. It is the City's position "today" (as expressed by Ms. Slazyk at hearing) that Petitioner does not have "Local Government Permission" from the City for the Proposed Sign. On May 4, 2009, almost a year after Ms. Slazyk had signed the "Local Government Permission" section of Petitioner's Application, Petitioner's Application was submitted to the Department.5 The Department contracts with Cardno TBE "to do physical inspections of potential advertising sites" that are the subject of permit applications. For the past 11 years, Matt Barnes has been employed by Cardno TBE as an outdoor advertising inspector responsible for conducting such inspections for the Department. Mr. Barnes was assigned the task of inspecting the CanPartners Parcel (the site where, according to Petitioner's Application, the Proposed Sign would be located). Using two different distance measuring devices,6 Mr. Barnes measured the distance "along the highway [I-95]" from a point directly above the Proposed Sign location (as indicated by a "wooden stake [sticking] about two feet out of the ground" that had been placed there by Petitioner) to the "nearest permitted sign" on the same side of the "highway" (which was to the south and bore tag numbers 412 and 413).7 He "came up with 970 feet both times." On May 19, 2009, the Department issued its Notice of Denied Outdoor Advertising Permit Application, announcing its intention to deny Petitioner's Application because, in pertinent part, the "[Proposed] [S]ign [did] not meet spacing requirements" and the "Local Government Permission" was given "more than six (6) months prior to [the Department's] receipt [of the application]." Petitioner subsequently requested a "formal administrative hearing" on the matter. On May 21, 2009, Intervenor filed an Application for Outdoor Advertising Permit for a sign to be located at 350 Northwest Second Street in the City on a parcel leased to Intervenor by Lummus Park Associates, LLC (Lummus Sign). Because of its proximity to the location of the Proposed Sign, the Lummus Sign would violate minimum spacing requirements and thus not be permittable were Petitioner's Application to be granted. Accordingly, Intervenor's application is being held in "pending status" by the Department until final action is taken on Petitioner's Application.8 On June 17, 2009, Petitioner (through one of its principals, Santiago Echemendia, Esquire) sent a letter to the City, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: This law firm represents Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC ("Outlook"). As you may be aware, Section 14 of SB 360 provides that any local government issued development order or building permit that has an expiration date of September 1, 2008 through January 1, 2012, is extended and renewed for a period of two years following its date of expiration. In accordance with Section 4(c) of the Settlement Agreement between CBS Outdoor, Inc. and the City of Miami (attached), "[i]f an FDOT permit is not issued within 280 days of the City's signature, the City's approval will become null and void for that particular application." FDOT also takes the position that the local government permission on FDOT Form 575-070-04 must be issued within 180 days of application to FDOT for an FDOT tag for a sign location. On behalf of Outlook, pursuant to Section 14 of Senate Bill 360, please accept this letter as notification that Outlook is extending the local government permission provided on FDOT Form 575-070-04 for the following locations: * * * Site: CanPartners Folio Number: 01-4137-036-0020 Local Government Permission: 05/22/08 FDOT 180 Day Expiration: 11/18/08 2 Year Extension of FDOT 180 Day Expiration: 11/18/10 Original 280 Day Expiration: 02/26/09 2 Year Extension of City of Miami Expiration: 02/26/11 * * * This 2 year extension notification applies to extend both the FDOT 180 Day Expiration, as well as the 280 Day Expiration set forth in the CBS Settlement Agreement. Therefore, the expiration date for the aforementioned sign locations is extended until the dates listed in the columns entitled "2 Year Extension of FDOT 180 Day Expiration" and "2 Year Extension of City of Miami Expiration." A copy of the FDOT Form 575-070-04 for each of the sign locations is attached for your convenience. . . . On October 5, 2009 (approximately five months after the filing of Petitioner's Application with the Department), the City Commission, on second reading, adopted a resolution (Resolution File Number 09-01061) to enable it to participate in the "pilot program" established by Section 479.07(9)(c), Florida Statutes, "under which the distance between permitted signs on the same side of an interstate highway may be reduced to 1,000 feet if [certain] requirements . . . are met." The resolution, which is still in effect, provides as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION EXPRESSING ITS INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN A PILOT PROGRAM ALLOWING 1,000 FOOT SPACING OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS ALONG EXPRESSWAYS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NOTIFY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE CITY'S INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH PILOT PROGRAM. WHEREAS, Section 10.4.5 of the Miami Zoning Ordinance prohibits new freestanding "Outdoor advertising signs" as defined therein, except for Outdoor advertising signs permitted pursuant to a Settlement Agreement that results in a net reduction in the number of Outdoor advertising signs located in the City of Miami (hereinafter "qualified settlement agreement"); and WHEREAS, by separate Resolutions, the City Commission has authorized the City Manager on behalf of the City of Miami ("City") to enter into qualified settlement agreements with the following sign owners: Carter Pritchett Hodges, Inc. d/b/a Carter Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("Carter"), Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. d/b/a/ Clear Channel Outdoor ("Clear Channel"), and CBS Outdoor, Inc. (hereinafter "CBS"); and WHEREAS, at the time the qualified settlement agreements were approved by the City Commission, Section 479.07(9)(a), F.S. (2008), required new Outdoor advertising signs to be located at least one thousand five hundred feet from any other permitted sign on the same side on an interstate highway (hereinafter "1,500 foot spacing"); and WHEREAS, by House Bill 1021, the Florida Legislature recently amended s. 479.07(9)(c), F.S., in the 2009 Legislative Session, to include the City within a pilot program permitting new Outdoor advertising signs on an interstate highway to be located within one thousand feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of the interstate highway (hereinafter "1,000 foot spacing") under certain enumerated conditions, to wit: "(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1), there is established a pilot program in Orange, Hillsborough, and Osceola Counties, and within the boundaries of the City of Miami, under which the distance between permitted signs on the same side of an interstate highway may be reduced to 1,000 feet if all other requirements of this chapter are met and if: The local government has adopted a plan, program, resolution, ordinance, or other policy encouraging the voluntary removal of signs in a downtown, historic, redevelopment, infill, or other designated area which also provides for a new or replacement sign to be erected on an interstate highway within that jurisdiction if a sign in the designated area is removed; The sign owner and the local government mutually agree to the terms of the removal and replacement; and The local government notifies the department of its intention to allow such removal and replacement as agreed upon pursuant to subparagraph 2." and WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it in the best interest of the City to participate in the pilot program authorized by s. 479.07(9)(c), F.S. (2009), which would permit 1,000 foot spacing for Outdoor advertising signs under the guidelines provided in this Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section. 2. Pursuant to s. 479.07(9)(c)(2), F.S. (2009), the City hereby adopts a pilot program encouraging the voluntary removal of signs within the boundaries of the City, which provides, subject to the conditions stated below, for a new or replacement sign to be erected on an interstate highway, with 1,000 foot spacing, if other Outdoor advertising signs within the boundaries of the City are removed. Section 3. Any sign owner seeking permission to erect an Outdoor advertising sign with 1,000 foot spacing under this pilot program shall meet the following conditions: The sign owner must have a qualified settlement agreement with the City; Any application for a new sign under the pilot program must be in accordance with all terms and conditions of the qualified settlement agreement unless otherwise specified in these conditions; In no event may an application for a new sign under the pilot program exceed the limitation on the number of signs otherwise permitted under the qualified settlement agreement; The duration of the pilot program will not exceed the term of the qualified settlement agreement; No LED Sign may be erected with 1,000 foot spacing unless allowed by an amendment to the sign owner's qualified settlement agreement pursuant to applicable provisions of the Miami Zoning Ordinance; Sign owners must specify in advance of applying for a 1,000 foot spacing application the locations of the signs proposed to be removed or already removed; Sign owners may not be delinquent on any financial obligation to the City as per their qualified settlement agreement; All Outdoor advertising signs erected with 1,000 foot spacing shall be designed with aluminum plating (example attached) or be subject to design review per Manager's designee or designees. Section 4. Should s. 479.07(9)(c), F. S. (2009) be repealed by the Florida Legislature, this pilot program shall automatically expire. Section 5. The City Manager is authorized (1) to notify the Florida Department of Transportation of the City's intention to allow removal and replacement of Outdoor advertising signs under 1,000 foot spacing as provided in this Resolution. Section 6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor. Petitioner has not entered into "a qualified settlement agreement with the City" providing for the removal and replacement of outdoor advertising signs (as required by Section 3(a) of Resolution File Number 09-01061), nor has it at any time, much less "in advance" of having submitted its application (as required by Section 3(f) of Resolution File Number 09-01061), "specif[ied]" what sign(s) would be removed and replaced if the Proposed Sign were to be permitted. In or around November 2009, Petitioner retained the services of Mario Prats, a Florida-licensed surveyor since 1982, to measure how far the Proposed Sign location was to the nearest existing sign directly to the south of this location. When Mr. Prats went to the CanPartners Parcel, he did not see the stake that had been there in May 2009, when Mr. Barnes had done his measurements; nor did he see any other object marking the location of the Proposed Sign. He relied on a "drawing" to "approximate" where the sign would be. Using a "Topcon [measurement] device" and measuring, not along I-95, but the ramp to I-95, Mr. Prats determined that the distance between the Proposed Sign location and the closest sign south of this location was 1,032 feet. The only measurements offered and received into evidence to establish the distance between the Proposed Sign location and the nearest permitted sign (on the same side of the highway) were those taken by Mr. Barnes and Mr. Prats (as discussed above). Neither Mr. Barnes, nor Prats, determined that this distance was 1,500 feet or more.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a final order denying Petitioner's Application for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2010, 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 11th day of August, 2010.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's applications to erect a steel monopole which would support a two- sided outdoor advertising sign to be located west of Interstate Highway 95 (I-95), 2,244 feet north of I-95's intersection with Indrio Road, St. Lucie County, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters Petitioner POZ Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (POZ), is a corporation engaged in the business of erecting and maintaining outdoor advertising signs. The principals of POZ are Richard Pozniak and his wife, Barbara. Respondent, Department of Transportation (Department) is a state agency charged with, inter alia, the responsibility to regulate outdoor advertising, under the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code. On February 17, 1997, POZ applied with the Department for permits to erect a monopole sign which would support a two- sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 2,244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road, St. Lucie County, Florida. The Department reviewed the applications, and on February 20, 1997, gave notice to POZ that the applications were denied because the "[s]ite is within 500 feet of a restricted interchange or intersection at grade (S. #14-10.006(1)(b)5, FAC)." POZ filed a timely request for a formal hearing to challenge the Department's decision, and these proceedings duly followed. Matters at issue POZ did not contend, and indeed offered no proof at hearing to demonstrate, that the proposed site was not, as found by the Department, within 500 feet of a restricted interchange or intersection at grade, as proscribed by Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code.2 Rather, as noted in the preliminary statement, POZ contends the Department should be precluded from applying the Rule's spacing provisions as a basis for denial of the requested permits based on a theory of estoppel or a theory of inconsistent application of the Rule's spacing requirements. POZ's estoppel theory To accept POZ's estoppel theory, one must accept, as offered, Mr. Pozniak's version of events which he avers transpired in 1990, when he conducted his outdoor advertising business through AdCon Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (AdCon).3 According to Mr. Pozniak, in 1990 he met with Vana Kinchen, then a sign inspector with the Department, to establish the proper location of a billboard that AdCon proposed to permit. Again, according to Mr. Pozniak, Ms. Kinchen helped him measure the site, and identified the same location at issue in this proceeding (2244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road) as an appropriate placement for a billboard. Following Ms. Kinchen's advice as to location, Mr. Pozniak avers that he applied for permits on behalf of AdCon to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located at the exact same site that is at issue in this proceeding. Those applications, according to Mr. Pozniak, were approved and Department tags issued; however, the sign was not erected within 270 days after the permit issued, as required by Section 479.05(3)(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and the permits became void. Having carefully considered the proof in this case, it must be concluded that Mr. Pozniak's version of the events surrounding AdCon's permitting activities in 1990 is less than credible. Rather, the persuasive proof demonstrates that AdCon's application for permits to erect a billboard at the site at issue in this proceeding were denied and it is most unlikely that Ms. Kinchen ever advised Mr. Pozniak that such site was a proper location for a billboard. Regarding AdCon's permitting activities in 1990, the proof demonstrates that on April 6, 1990, AdCon filed applications (inexplicably dated May 6, 1990) with the Department to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 3050 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road. Consistent with the requirement of Section 479.04(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the applications included a separate statement from the local government that the proposed signs complied with local government requirements. Those applications were approved and, on May 3, 1990, the Department's tag numbers BB-457-35 (for the north facing sign) and BB-458-35 (for the south facing sign) were issued. Subsequently, on November 9, 1990, AdCo filed applications dated November 7, 1990, with the Department to erect a monopole sign which would support a two-sided billboard to be located west of I-95, and 2,244 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road (the location at issue in this case). Those applications were rejected by the Department on November 15, 1990, because they violated the spacing requirements of Section 479.07(9)(a)1, Florida Statutes, which prohibits the issuance of a permit unless the sign is located at least 1,500 feet from any other sign on the same side of an interstate highway. Notably, as the Department observed at that time, those applications conflicted with the previously approved applications of AdCon for the site located at 3,050 feet north of the intersection of I-95 and Indrio Road, and the permittee still had until January 28, 1991, to erect those signs. The applications were also rejected by the Department because they failed to include a statement from local government as required by Section 479.04(3)(b), Florida Statutes, that the proposed signs complied with local government requirements. Rather, what AdCon submitted was a copy of the local government approval it had secured for the location permitted by the Department on May 3, 1990. That documentation did not, as AdCon knew or should have known, meet the requirements for the new location. Clearly, the Department did not previously permit the site at issue in this case, and it is most unlikely that Ms. Kinchen ever affirmatively advised Mr. Pozniak as to the suitability of the site. In so concluding, Mr. Pozniak's testimony, as well as Petitioner's Exhibit 3 (what purports to be copies of applications, dated November 7, 1990, by AdCon for the site at issue in this proceeding, and purportedly approved by the Department) have been carefully considered. However, when compared with the other proof of record it must be concluded that Petitioner's Exhibit 3 is a fabrication,4 and that Mr. Pozniak's testimony on the subject is not credible or worthy of belief. POZ's theory of inconsistency Mr. Pozniak offered testimony at hearing concerning two outdoor advertising signs at the intersection of I-95 and State Road 60 which he opined did not conform with the Department's spacing requirements and, therefore, represent inconsistent application of the District's rule. The persuasive proof is, however, to the contrary. The first sign, located within 500 feet of the interchange, was in existence when the Department's "ramp rule" regarding spacing requirements became effective and, accordingly, its presence was grandfathered. However, at some time following the enactment of the ramp rule, the owner replaced the sign. At that time, the sign became nonconforming and the Department, as soon as it became aware of the nonconformity, commenced an action to secure the sign's removal. The other sign alluded to by Mr. Pozniak, and identified in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1, is owned by Division Street, Inc., and, contrary to Mr. Pozniak's testimony, that sign complies with the Department's spacing requirements and was properly permitted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the subject applications for outdoor advertising sign permits. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent's sign which is the subject of this proceeding was erected on Kaley Avenue, approximately 124 feet east of the intersection of Kaley Avenue with U.S. 17/92/441, in Orange County, Florida. This location is approximately .64 mile north of 1-4, as alleged in the violation notice. The subject sign is located on the south side of Kaley Avenue facing east and west which is parallel to U.S. 17/92/441. U.S. 17/92/441 is a federal-aid primary highway. Kaley Avenue is a non-controlled road. The parties stipulated that it was the position of personnel of the Fifth District of the Department of Transportation prior to May of 1985 that state permits for outdoor advertising structures were not required when such structures were to be erected on a non-controlled highway, although said structures might be within 660 feet of a federal- aid primary highway. In March of 1981 the Respondent had applied to the Department for a permit to erect a sign at the location in question in this proceeding. By letter dated April 24, 1981, the Department returned the Respondent's application for the reason that the sign location requested does not face or serve a federal-aid primary highway, and no state permit is required. Based upon the Department's response to its permit application, the Respondent erected its sign at the location where its application sough a permit. The sign was erected in May of 1981. The sign that was erected is visible to traffic on U.S. 17/92/441, although it is parallel to U.S. 17/92/441 and at right angles to Kaley Avenue. There is another permitted sign located on the south side of U.S. 17/92/441, approximately 96 feet from the subject sign. This other sign faces north and south not east and west, and is not on Kaley Avenue. The notice of violation issued for the subject sign in August of 1985 seeks removal of this sign for not having the permit which the Respondent had applied for in 1981, but which had not been issued. It was as a result of the Department's erroneous interpretation of the applicable statutes and rules that the Respondent's application for a permit was returned in April of 1981 advising the Respondent that a permit was not required. As a result of this erroneous interpretation, the Respondent's sign was built.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against the Respondent, Cashi Signs, in the violation notice issued on August 21, 1985, be dismissed, and that the sign which is the subject of this proceeding be given the classification of non-conforming sign. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 23rd day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, MS-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 A. J. Spalla General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the application contains knowingly false or misleading information; or Whether the Department is estopped to revoke the permits.
Findings Of Fact By application for outdoor advertising sign permits dated December 19, 1989 (Exhibit 1), Dolphin Outdoor Advertising requested permits for a sign to be located along I-4 in Polk County, Florida 100 feet west of Kraft Road. The application stated that the proposed sign was 1600 feet from the nearest permitted sign. The District DOT sign inspector to whom this application was referred for processing checked the records for signs located within 1000 feet of the proposed location under the mistaken understanding that the minimum spacing requirement for signs along interstate highways was 1000 feet. After determining there were no valid conflicting signs, the inspector, who had been employed by the department approximately six months, approved the application and tags numbered AY 108-35 and AY 109-35 were issued on February 24, 1989. In the interim, the applicant, upon learning that his application would be approved, contacted the landowner and entered into a lease for the property and on February 17, 1989, paid Florida Log and Timber $5000 for the first year's lease (Exhibit 11) on this property. The applicant also paid the finder of the site some $4300 for services and expenses in November, 1988. (Exhibits 7 and 8) In mid-March 1989, while discussing these permits with her supervisor, the inspector who had issued the permit to Respondent learned that the required spacing between signs along interstate highways is 1500 feet instead of 1000 feet which is the minimum spacing along federal-aid primary highways. By letter dated March 17, 1989 (Exhibit 3) the Department advised Respondent that permits AY 108-35 and AY 109-35 were issued in error because of a valid existing permit for a sign located 1056 feet west of Respondent's proposed sign. The permits were therefore stated to be no longer valid, and these proceedings followed. Petitioner's letter of March 17, 1989 was received by Respondent before construction on the sign started but after Respondent received a building permit from Polk County dated February 27, 1989 at a cost to Respondent of $101.20.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking permits AY 108-35 and AY 109-35 issued to Dolphin Outdoor Advertising for a sign along I-4 100 feet west of Kraft Road in Polk County. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Scott Hill, Pro Se 1718 Golfside Drive Winter Park, Florida 32972 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the respondents or some of them erected and maintained outdoor advertising signs in violation of Rule 14-10.006(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, because more than two advertisements or "messages" were visible to motorists at the same location?
Findings Of Fact Visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards both of the same, concededly lawful size, mounted on a single structure, one on top of the other, 1.75 miles east of State Road 69 in Jackson County. The upper sign advertises a Holiday Inn in Marianna. The bottom sign advertises a Best Western motel (yellow logo against black background) and a McDonald's restaurant (golden arches and white lettering against a red background.) Between the two businesses's names on the bottom sign board appears "11 MI EXIT 21" against a white background. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1716T). Also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted on the same structure, one on top of the other, 2.4 miles east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises the Chipley Motel. Over the words "THIS EXIT," the central portion of the lower sign advertises a Stuckey's store. Flanking this central portion, both ends of the billboard are taken up with advertisements featuring petroleum trademarks (a scallop shell and a star.) Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1714T). Visible to east-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted one on top of the other on the same poles, 1.2 miles west of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises a single business establishment. Underneath, half the sign is devoted to advertising the Washington Motor Inn and half to touting The Outlet Center. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1923T). Visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted on the same structure one on top of the other, 2.7 miles east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advises motorists of the proximity of a motel. The lower sign advertises both a Chevron filling station and a Western Sizzlin restaurant, devoting half the panel to each. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1921T). Also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 is a pair of billboards mounted one over the other at a site 1.3 miles west of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper panel is devoted exclusively to informing the driving public of a nearby motel. The lower billboard, like the lower billboard located 1.7 miles east of State Road 69, advertises a McDonald's restaurant and a Best Western motel, and does so in a similar bipartite manner. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89- 1922T) Finally, also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 is another pair of billboards mounted on top of one another on the same poles, a mile east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises a McDonald's restaurant. Like the lower sign located 2.4 miles east of State Road 77, the lower sign located a mile east advertises not only Stuckey's, but also Shell and Texaco gasolines. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1924T). A handbook DOT employees use depicts three billboards at one location, over the caption: "One of the three faces is illegal if erected after January 28, 1972. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. DOT has not promulgated the handbook as a rule. The evidence did not establish when the billboards in question here were erected. But for Milford C. Truette's perspicacity, these cases might never have arisen. As acting outdoor advertising supervisor for DOT's District II, he told Elsie Myrick, a property and outdoor advertising inspector for DOT, that she "might want to check into ... [the signs involved here] and see that they were in violation." Myrick deposition p. 8. In the subsequently formed opinion of Ms. Myrick, it is unlawful for an outdoor advertising sign to advertise three or more locations at which the same advertiser does business or three or more businesses at the same location, although the proprietor of a single store might lawfully advertise three or more products for sale at the store, and a motel owner is free to advertise a restaurant and a cocktail lounge, at least if they are under the same roof. Respondent's signs are in violation, in Ms. Myrick's view, because, "You're getting across more messages than what you're allowed in a space." Myrick deposition, p. 15. Ms. Myrick thought a sign advertising several stores housed in a single mall would be illegal, but Mr. Truette and Mr. Kissinger, DOT motorist information services coordinator, disagreed. Ms. Myrick rejected the suggestion that common ownership of advertisers would make a difference, but Mr. Kissinger's views on this point were less clear. T.52-3. Mr. Kissinger believes that an outdoor advertising sign can advertise multiple locations at which an enterprise conducts business, or even multiple business entities, if they are all located on the same parcel of real estate.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the notices to show cause issued in each of these consolidated cases. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1989, 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 20th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 89-1714T, 89-1716T, 89-1921T, 89-1922T, 89-1923T, 89-1924 Except for the last sentence in proposed finding of fact No. 4, petitioner's proposed findings of fact 1 through 5 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact were not numbered, but have been treated fully in the recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact In mid-1983 National had a properly permitted outdoor advertising structure bearing tag numbers AD-016-10 (south-facing sign) and AD-018-10 (north-facing sign) on the east side of U.S. 27 on leased property in Highlands County. In the latter part of 1983 this property was purchased by Young. On September 15, 1983, Young notified National that he was the owner of the property on which this sign was located and requested National to remove the sign. On September 16, 1983, Young applied for a permit to erect an outdoor advertising sign at this location. Young's application was disapproved by DOT on November 7, 1983, because DOT's records showed this to be a site occupied by a permitted sign (Exhibit 3). On or about October 26, 1983, after having received no response from National to his request for National to remove the sign, Young cut down the sign by sawing its supporting posts. On November 28, 1983, Young requested a hearing on the denial by DOT of his application for a permit for a sign at this site. On November 3, 1983, National obtained a lease (Exhibit 2) on property abutting Young's property and, on or about November 4, 1983, erected a sign on this property using the same faces from the fallen sign and attached the tags issued for its original sign. National's original lease dated 10/13/80 (Exhibit 1) with John Larino provided that either party could terminate the agreement on thirty days' notice. When Young purchased the property from Larino, he complied with the lease provisions regarding termination of the lease, including rebating the rent for the unused portion of the lease. Young erected a sign on this property on November 6, 1983, before his application had been denied and two days after National had re-erected its sign. Young obtained a county building permit on September 16, 1983, for the sign he subsequently erected. National has not applied for permit for the structure erected on the land leased from Boyd but attached permit tags AD-016-10 and AD-018-10 to the sign. The juxtaposition of the signs is as follows: proceeding north on U.S. 27, the first sign is owned by Young, next is the site of the former National sign, and then National's new sign. All of these locations are on the east side of U.S. 27, are less than 1,000 feet from a permitted sign to the south, are more than 500 feet from the sign, and all are within 180 feet of each other. When an applicant applies for a permit for a new sign, the site is inspected by a member of the Outdoor Advertising staff in the DOT district where the sign is to be located in company with the application, or the site is staked out by the applicant and viewed by a staff member. This inspection is to ascertain that the proposed sign will be located the required minimum distance from an existing sign and the proper distance from the roadway from which the sign will primarily be observed. DOT'S policy is that any relocation of the sign from the authorized location constitutes a new sign and requires the submission of a new application and approval therefor. The approved application for National's original sign was on U.S. 27 2.9 miles north of "Junction 17-Sebring." This location is on the property now owned by Young.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Metro Advertising Company, is a licensed outdoor advertising company doing buiness in Orlando, Florida, through a division known as Eagle Outdoor. In 1964 the Petitioner acquired two outdoor advertising signs situated side-by-side on U.S. 17-92, 1.49 miles south of SR 436, in Seminole County, Florida. Thereafter, these signs were permitted by the Department and issued permit numbers 3988-2 and 3990-2. The Petitioner has renewed these permits each year by paying the appropriate annual renewal fee to the Department, including the renewal fees for the year 1985. Some time in 1983 the Departmet's outdoor advertising inspector noticed that the two signs which are the subject of this proceeding did not have affixed to them the permit tags as required. This inspector informed a representative of the Petitioner who was a divisional manager of the company, that these signs did not display permit tags, and advised that this be corrected. Subsequently, the Department's outdoor advertising administrator also discussed the matter of the missing tags on the subject signs with the Petitioner's divisional manager. At this time the divisional manager denied that the Petitioner owned these signs, and that there was no reason to replace the tags. On December 12, 1983, violation notices were issued by the Department charging that the signs at the subject location were in violation of the statutes and rules, and that these signs would be removed unless an administrative hearing was requested within 30 days. Since the Petitioner's logo appeared on these signs, the violation notices were directed to the Petitioner, and mailed returned receipt requested. When the time afforded to request an administrative hearing expired without any response from the Petitioner, the Department issued its final order for the removal of the subject signs. Pursuant to this order, the Department caused these signs to be removed. The signs that the Deparatment removed were nonconforming signs. If they were rebuilt they would violate the statutory spacing requirements.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's request for replalcement tags for permit numbers 3988-2 and 3990-2 for signs on U. S. 17-92, 1.49 miles south of SR 436, in Seminole County, be DENIED, and that the fees paid by the Petitioner for the years 1984 and 1985 be REFUNDED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 15th day of July, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S. Livingston, Esq. Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Philip S. Bennett, Esq. Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Dept of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
