Findings Of Fact Based on the record transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Petitioner, the following are found as the relevant facts: The Respondent, Hinson Oil Company, owns four outdoor advertising signs in Gadsden County, Florida, located on the south side of I-10, in the proximity of County Road 270-A. On October 3, 1984, the Department of Transportation notified the Respondent in writing that these signs violated Section 479.11, Florida Statutes, in that they were alleged to be located in an area which is not a zoned or unzoned commercial or industrial area. The return receipt was signed by E. W. Hinson, Jr., on October 9, 1984. Paragraph 2 of the notices of violation served on October 3 and received on October 9, 1984, sets forth the following procedural requirements: You must comply with the applicable provisions of said Statute(s) and Cede(s) within thirty (30) days from the date of this notice, . . . or in the alternative, an administrative hearing under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, must be requested by you within thirty (30) days of the date of this notice . . . E. W. Hinson, Jr., on behalf of the Respondent, requested an administrative hearing by letter dated November 16, 1984. This request was received by the Department of Transportation clerk on November 19, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order dismissing with prejudice the Respondent's request for an administrative hearing in each of these cases. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 24th day of January, 1985, 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 24th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire and Maxine Fay Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 E. W. Hinson, Jr. Hinson Oil Company P.O. Box 1168 Quincy, Florida 32351 John Curry, Esquire P.O. Drawer 391 Quincy, Florida 32351
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent should revoke Petitioner's sign permits and retrieve Petitioner's permit tags because Petitioner violated Sections 479.07(5) and 479.08, Florida Statutes, 1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 10.004(7), 2/ by allegedly removing its sign from its property and by failing to display the permit tag prior to removing the sign.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation formed in 1983 by Mr. Rodney Forton. Mr. Forton is the president and sole shareholder of Petitioner. Sometime in 1987, Petitioner entered into a management agreement with Cotee River Outdoor Advertising Company ("Cotee River"). The management agreement provided that Cotee River would construct a sign on property owned by Petitioner on U.S. highway 19 in New Port Richey, Florida (the "Cotee River sign"). Cotee River agreed to pay Petitioner a portion of the advertising revenues from the sign. The Cotee River Permit On May 26, 1987, Cotee River applied for an outdoor advertising sign permit from Respondent. The application described the Cotee River sign as a rectangular wood sign measuring 10 feet by 20 feet, with its lowest point approximately 15 feet above ground level and its highest point approximately 25 feet above the crown of the road. Respondent approved the application and mailed the approval to Cotee River on May 29, 1987. On June 3, 1987, Respondent located the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory at, Section 595, ". . . N/B 5.06 in F/N." The number "5.06" indicates that the sign is located at milepost 5.06 on U.S. 19. 3/ Mileposts describe the location of each sign by the distance of the sign from a fixed point. Each of Respondent's outdoor advertising inspectors measures the milepost for each sign in his or her territory using a distance measuring instrument. Respondent then enters the milepost for each sign in Respondent's sign inventory. The milepost of 5.06 that Respondent assigned to the Cotee River permit was incorrect. In May 1987, Cotee River constructed a sign on Petitioner's property pursuant to the permit granted by Respondent. The sign was a metal monopole sign rather than the wood sign described in the application. The Cotee River sign was not constructed at milepost 5.060. Cotee River rented the sign to outdoor advertisers. However, Cotee River failed to pay any portion of the advertising revenue to Petitioner, and the parties resolved the matter by mutual agreement. Petitioner and Cotee River agreed that Cotee River would release its right to manage the Cotee River sign in consideration for the right to manage a sign located on other property owned by Petitioner. The agreement provided that Petitioner would pay Cotee River a prescribed sum in exchange for the performance of specific duties by Cotee River. Cotee River failed to perform the duties specified in the agreement. Petitioner refused to pay the balance of payments. Petitioner sued Cotee River. Cotee River went into bankruptcy and was dissolved. Petitioner's Permit On July 14, 1992, Petitioner applied for an outdoor advertising sign permit for the Cotee River sign. The application described the sign as an existing rectangular, metal, monopole "sign in place," measuring approximately 10 feet by 20 feet. The application stated that the sign was first erected in May 1987. Respondent approved the application from Petitioner and mailed the approval to Petitioner on October 12, 1992. Respondent again incorrectly listed the location of the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory as, Section 595, ". . . N/B 5.060 in F/N." Respondent issued permit tag number BG341-25 to Petitioner. Although Petitioner used the Cotee River sign to generate advertising revenue, Petitioner never displayed any tag numbers on the sign. The tag numbers remained in Petitioner's files until sometime in 1995. Dr. Goluba's Permit At about the same time that Cotee River went out of business in 1992, Robert L. Goluba, D.D.S., owned property immediately adjacent to Petitioner's property. Prior to March 1993, an unidentified representative of Respondent contacted Dr. Goluba. The representative told Dr. Goluba that there were two signs on Dr. Goluba's property that were going to be taken down if the sign permits were not renewed. The representative mistakenly identified one of the two signs as the Cotee River sign. The representative went on to explain that Respondent could avoid the expense of taking down the two signs if Dr. Goluba obtained permits for the signs. Dr. Goluba wanted the advertising revenues and agreed to obtain the necessary permits. On March 2, 1993, Dr. Goluba applied for a sign permit for the Cotee River sign he mistakenly believed to be located on his property. The application described the sign as an "existing" rectangular, metal, monopole sign measuring approximately 10 feet by 24 feet, with its lowest point approximately 18 feet above ground level and its highest point approximately 30 feet above the crown of the road. The application stated that the sign was first erected in May 1987. Respondent approved the application from Dr. Goluba and mailed the approval to him on March 8, 1993. Respondent listed the location of the Cotee River sign in Respondent's sign inventory as, Section 595, ". . . N/M.P. 4.870 in F/N." Respondent incorrectly listed Dr. Goluba's permit in the sign inventory at milepost 4.870. On March 24, 1993, Respondent issued permit number BG960-35 to Dr. Goluba. Although Dr. Goluba never derived advertising revenue from the Cotee River sign, he did display his permit on the sign. Dr. Goluba inadvertently failed to pay the fee required to renew the sign permit in 1994 and, therefore, failed to display current permits on the sign. On April 11, 1994, Respondent issued a Notice of Violation, Failure To Display Permit Tag. The New Outdoor Advertising Inspector In early 1995, a new outdoor advertising inspector assumed responsibility for the territory in which the Cotee River sign was located. On April 11, 1995, the inspector conducted a field inspection to verify the mileposts and signs in the territory for which he was responsible. The inspector correctly identified the milepost of the Cotee River sign as milepost 4.980. He found no sign subject to regulation by Respondent 4/ located at milepost 5.060. Milepost 5.060 and 4.980 are approximately 422 feet apart. Relevant law prohibits the location of regulated signs within 1,000 feet of each other. 5/ No exceptions to 1,000 foot prohibition applied to the Cotee River sign. The inspector concluded that Petitioner had removed the wood sign originally permitted to Cotee River in 1987 and which Respondent had incorrectly listed in its sign inventory as being located at milepost 5.060. On July 12, 1995, Respondent issued to Petitioner a Notice Of Violation -- Removed Sign. On August 22, 1995, Respondent ordered the revocation of Petitioner's tag permit because Petitioner had allegedly removed the Cotee River sign from milepost 5.060. Respondent never issued a Notice of Violation to Petitioner for failure to display his tag numbers on the Cotee River sign. Petitioner protested the revocation of its permit and refused to return the permit tags to Respondent. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. In the meantime, Dr. Goluba's accountant had inadvertently failed to pay the permit fee for the Cotee River sign. Respondent placed the Cotee River sign on Respondent's "cutdown list" for failure to pay the required fees. On June 20, 1995, Respondent had the Cotee River sign cut down and removed. Respondent sent Dr. Goluba a bill in the amount of $4,990 for the cost of cutting the sign down and removing it. Prior to the date Respondent cut down and removed the Cotee River sign, Petitioner notified the inspector verbally and with written documentation that the sign was owned by Petitioner, located on Petitioner's property, and permitted to Petitioner. The inspector found that Respondent's records did not agree with Petitioner's records. The inspector informed Petitioner that the "cutdown order" came from Tallahassee and there was nothing the inspector could do. Dr. Goluba's tags were displayed on the Cotee River sign at the time it was cut down and removed. Ms. Maria Passanisi was the broker who managed the sign for Dr. Goluba. Ms. Passanisi was at the site when the sign was cut down and removed. She protested Respondent's action so vehemently that the police officers regulating traffic at the scene had to intervene to quell the disturbance. After Respondent cut down the Cotee River sign, Petitioner drove a stick into the ground where the sign had been located and displayed the permit tags for the removed sign on the stick. The tags were displayed on the stick at the time of the hearing. The Computerized Sign Inventory Respondent uses a computer system to maintain its sign inventory. The computer system does not accept the same milepost for two or more regulated signs. When Petitioner applied for its sign permit in 1992, Respondent was required to carry the Cotee River permit in the inventory as a void permit. The computer system would not accept the same milepost for Petitioner's permit and the void Cotee River permit. In order to circumvent the computer system, Respondent's supervisor of property management arbitrarily changed the milepost number entered for the Cotee River permit from milepost 5.060 to milepost 4.970. As late as September 20, 1993, Respondent's computerized sign inventory identified the Cotee River sign as being located at three incorrect mileposts. The inventory located the same sign permitted to Cotee River, Petitioner, and Dr. Goluba, respectively, at mileposts 4.970, 5.060, and 4.870. In 1995, the new outdoor advertising inspector correctly located the Cotee River sign at milepost 4.980. However, he mistakenly assumed that milepost 5.060 was the correct milepost for Petitioner's sign and erroneously concluded that Petitioner had removed its sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not remove the permitted sign and that the permits issued to Petitioner are valid. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1997.
Findings Of Fact In March of 1984 the Respondent applied to the Department for a permit to erect a sign facing east at the location in question in this proceeding. The actual location proposed was 350 feet from the right-of-way of U.S. 17/92/441, adjacent to Oak Ridge Road, in Orange County, Florida. U.S. 17/92/441 is a federal-aid primary highway. Oak Ridge Road is a non-controlled road. There is another sign owned by the Respondent located 20 to 25 feet from the subject sign, but there is no evidence in the record to show which direction this other sign faces, or whether the two signs are on the same side of the highway. By memorandum dated April 5, 1984, the Department returned the Respondent's application for the reason that the sign location requested "is not on a federal-aid primary highway", and the Respondent "need only comply with local regulations". This memorandum stated further that "a state sign permit is not required" to locate a sign at the subject site. The application submitted by the Respondent in March of 1984 was returned with the notation on it that the proposed sign "need only comply with local regulations". Based upon the Department's response to its permit application, the Respondent erected its sign at the location where its application sought a permit. The sign that was erected is visible to traffic on U.S. 17/92/441, although it is parallel to U.S. 17/82/441 and at right angles to Oak Ridge Road. The notice of violation issued for the subject sign in July of 1985 seeks removal of this sign for not having the permit which the Respondent had applied for in 1984. 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. It was as a result of this erroneous interpretation of the applicable statutes and rules that the Respondent's application for a permit was returned in April of 1984 with the notation on it that a permit was not required. This erroneous interpretation allowed the Respondent's sign to be built.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against the Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corporation, in the violation notice issued on July 26, 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 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1986. 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 respondent has erected or maintained a sign on State Road 40 at the intersection with North East 49th Terrace in Marion County without the requisite permit and in violation of spacing requirements?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Arthur Steen owns an outdoor advertising sign located at the intersection of State Road 40 and Northeast 49th Terrace, within 660 feet of the right of way of State Road 40, which "has continued as Federal-Aid Primary highway [from October 24, 1955] up to the present date." Joint Stipulation. Mr. Steen's sign, which is visible from the main travelled way of State Road 40, proclaims on east and west faces: Marion Pines Senior Mobile Home Community Model Homes Turn Here Arrows point toward "Marion Pines," the new name of the first trailer park in Marion County. A subdivision lies between State Road 40 and the trailer park where Mr. Steen rents lots to mobile home owners. Mr. Steen's sign stands 599 feet west of another outdoor advertising sign, on the same side of the highway. DOT has issued permits to Harry Moody Signs for the other sign, which has two sign boards. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. Mr. Steen's sign stands on land that, like the trailer park and the subdivision, once belonged to Ross Allen. Mr. Steen and Mr. Allen originally paved what is now North East 49th Terrace (until recently known as North East 50th Avenue) and Mr. Steen maintained the road thereafter. Now the county has posted street signs. The sign at issue does not stand on premises Mr. Steen owns. The sign has stood within the right of way of the road leading to the trailer park since 1969 (although the copy was changed in 1983 and again in 1991; and the sign was enlarged in 1983.) At one time, Ross Allen offered to convey what has become North East 49th Terrace to Mr. Steen, Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, but Mr. Steen never accepted the offer.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: The DOT declare respondent's sign in violation. DONE and ENTERED this 31 day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31 day of March, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED TO: Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Frank C. Amatea, Esquire 500 N.E. 8th Avenue Ocala, FL 32670 Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Eleanor Hunter Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
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 As to DOAH Case Nos. 14-4926 and 14-4927, the issues are whether the billboards identified in the notices of violation are located on the premises of Respondent's business and, thus, exempt from licensure; and, if not, whether the billboards are eligible for licensure pursuant to section 479.07, Florida Statutes, or, alternatively, the "grandfather" provision set forth in section 479.105, Florida Statutes. With respect to DOAH Case No. 14-4928, the issue is whether Respondent engaged in, or benefitted from, the unpermitted removal, cutting, or trimming of vegetation.
Findings Of Fact I. DOAH Case Nos. 14-4926 & 14-4927 The Parties The Respondent in these proceedings is I-10 Pecan House, Inc. ("Pecan House"), an entity currently owned and managed by Olan Q. Nobles. As discussed in greater detail below, Pecan House is a small country store that has conducted business in Jefferson County, Florida, for nearly 40 years. The Department is the state agency responsible, inter alia, for the regulation of outdoor advertising signs located within 600 feet of, and visible from, interstate highways. The Events In or around 1976, Erma Jean Walker (Mr. Nobles' sister) and her husband, Lyman Walker, III, purchased three tracts of land that are relevant to this proceeding. The first such parcel, upon which the Walkers quickly constructed an open- air market, comprises one acre and is located on State Road 257, immediately north of the intersection of that roadway and I-10. The second relevant parcel, .18 acres in size and located a short distance to the southeast of the first tract, is situated adjacent to the westbound lanes of I-10. Upon their acquisition of this parcel, the Walkers constructed a billboard that advertised the open-air market and the related business activities conducted on the third parcel. The third parcel, which is roughly 2.3 acres in size and likewise adjoins the westbound lanes of I-10, is located less than 1000 feet to the east of the second tract. It is upon this tract that, in mid-to-late 1976, the Walkers built a concrete structure to be used for the purpose of manufacturing candy and jelly——products the Walkers offered for sale at the nearby open-air market. By the end of 1976, the Walkers also constructed (upon the third parcel) a billboard advertising the open-air market and jelly/candy manufacture. Although the billboards referenced above were visible from I-10 and located within 600 feet of the roadway——and, thus, within the Department's "controlled area"——the Walkers did not apply for outdoor advertising permits. This is because, as the Department concedes, the billboards were exempt from licensure from 1976 until the mid-1990s (or perhaps later, as Mr. Nobles asserts) under the "on premises" exemption set forth in section 479.16, Florida Statutes. Under the definition of "premises" in effect during that period, the land upon which a sign was located did not need to be contiguous to the advertised business in order for the exemption to apply. For reasons that will soon be apparent, it is necessary to inject a third billboard into this discussion: in 1993, the Walkers constructed on the third tract of land a "double-stack" billboard, which is situated less than 200 feet and 1000 feet, respectively, from the signs erected in 1976 upon the third and second tracts. Although the double-stack billboard would have ostensibly satisfied the on-premises exemption, the Walkers nevertheless applied for——and were granted——an outdoor advertising permit. For all that appears, the Department has never initiated any proceedings to revoke the permit, which remains valid to this day. In 1995, Mrs. Walker transferred control of Pecan House to Mr. Nobles, who until that time had assisted the Walkers on an as-needed basis. Soon thereafter, Mr. Nobles upgraded the open-air market (on the first parcel) to a secure building and, of particular relevance here, ceased all manufacturing activities at the concrete building (on the third parcel). At or around that time, the Legislature amended the definition of "premises" to include a contiguity requirement.3/ This is significant, for the second and third parcels——the locations of the two billboards at issue herein——are not contiguous to the first parcel but, rather, are separated by a tract in which neither the Walkers nor Mr. Nobles holds a leasehold or ownership interest. Further, there is no recorded easement connecting Mr. Nobles' three parcels. Thus, although the two billboards constructed in 1976 lost their on-premises status in the mid-1990s, this fact apparently went unnoticed by the Department for roughly 13 years. Then, in March of 2008, the Department issued notices of violation in connection with both billboards. Among other things, the notices alleged that "outdoor advertising permit[s] [were] required, but ha[d] not been issued" for the billboards, which Mr. Nobles was instructed to remove within 30 days. A short time thereafter, an inspector or other agent of the Department conducted, in Mr. Nobles' presence, an examination of the 1976 billboards and Pecan House's business operations. At the conclusion of her inspection, the Department employee erroneously opined that, in fact, there was "no problem"4/ with the billboards in question, which Mr. Nobles reasonably took to mean that the signs continued to satisfy the on-premises exemption and, thus, were exempt from licensure. The reasonableness of this understanding was bolstered by the fact that, subsequent to the inspection, Mr. Nobles heard nothing more from the Department concerning the March 2008 notices of violation.5/ More than four years later, on December 17, 2012, the Department issued new notices of violation in connection with the 1976 billboards: notice 1352, relating to the billboard constructed upon the third parcel, which presently reads "Exit Now" and bears a Shell gasoline logo (hereinafter "Exit Now"); and notice 1487, relating to the billboard erected upon the second parcel, which presently reads "Welcome to Big O's / We Appreciate Your Business" (hereinafter "Big O's"). The parties thereafter engaged in settlement negotiations, in the course of which Mr. Nobles' counsel struggled mightily to convince the Department that the billboards continued to satisfy the on-premises exemption. When the Department rejected this argument, Mr. Nobles applied for an outdoor advertising permit for each billboard. The applications were ultimately denied, prompting the Department to refer the matters to DOAH for further proceedings. Based upon the evidence adduced at final hearing, it is evident that the billboards in question no longer meet the on-premises exemption and, thus, are subject to removal unless the signs meet either the current statutory requirements for a permit or, alternatively, the "grandfather" provision set forth in section 479.105, which authorizes licensure if the billboards satisfy earlier statutory criteria and certain other conditions. Eligibility for Licensure – "Exit Now" Beginning first with the "Exit Now" billboard, the record makes pellucid that the current statutory requirements for licensure cannot be satisfied. Among other things, the sign is located a mere 190 feet from the permitted, double-stack billboard erected in 1993, a distance far less than the minimum spacing requirement of 1500 feet. See § 479.07(9)(a)1., Fla. Stat. As for the potential applicability of the grandfather provision to the "Exit Now" billboard, it is critical to observe that the Department's delay of nearly five years (March of 2008 through December of 2012) in pursuing removal has placed Mr. Nobles at a significant disadvantage. In particular, had the Department moved forward in 2008——instead of inexplicably abandoning the action, which, along with the statements of its inspector, led Mr. Nobles to believe, incorrectly, that no permit was required——Mr. Nobles likely would have applied for a permit,6/ which the Department would have evaluated pursuant to the version of the grandfather provision in effect at that time. This is significant, for the 2008 codification of the grandfather provision, which remained unchanged until July 1, 2014, did not preclude licensure in situations where a billboard had previously enjoyed on-premises status or some other recognized exemption from the permitting requirement. Further, the pre-July 1, 2014, grandfather provision was quite favorable in that it allowed a potential licensee to demonstrate that the billboard would have met the criteria for licensure in effect "[a]t any time during the period in which the sign has been erected." § 479.105(1)(e)2., Fla. Stat. (2013)(emphasis added). The current version of the grandfather provision is quite a different animal. For one thing, grandfather status can only be granted if the billboard at issue "has never been exempt" from permitting. § 479.105(1)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added). For another thing, the current grandfather provision looks not at "any" time in which the sign has been erected but, rather, at the criteria in effect during the initial seven years in which the sign was subject to the Department's jurisdiction. § 479.105(1)(c)2.b., Fla. Stat. (2014). As Mr. Nobles readily acknowledges, his effort to obtain a permit for the "Exit Now" billboard is a nonstarter under the 2014 version of the grandfather provision, whose plain language prohibits the issuance of a permit where, as here, the sign was previously exempt from licensure. This does not end the matter, however, for the undersigned finds that the Department's unjustified delay in pursuing removal——along with its agent's erroneous statement that the billboard was legal, upon which Mr. Nobles relied——requires that the "Exit Now" application be evaluated under the version of the grandfather provision that was in effect from 2008 until July 1, 2014. Pursuant to the pre-2014 codification of section 479.105, "grandfathering" was authorized if the owner could demonstrate: 1) that the sign in question had been unpermitted, structurally unchanged, and continuously maintained at the same location for at least seven years; 2) that, at any time during the period in which the sign has been erected, the sign would have satisfied the criteria established in chapter 479 for issuance of a permit; 3) that the Department did not file a notice of violation or take other action to remove the sign during the initial seven-year period in which the sign was unpermitted, structurally unchanged, and continuously maintained at the same location; and 4) that the sign is not located on a state right-of-way and is not a safety hazard. § 479.105(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2013). Upon such a showing, the Department was authorized to treat the sign as conforming or nonconforming and issue a permit. Turing to the merits, the first prong is easily satisfied, as the "Exit Now" sign has been unpermitted, structurally unchanged, and continuously maintained at the same location for 39 years, far longer than the seven-year period the statute requires. The third prong is also met, for the record makes clear that the Department took no action to pursue removal during the initial seven-year period, i.e., 1976 through 1983, in which the sign was unpermitted, structurally unchanged, and continuously maintained. In addition, the Department stipulates that the sign neither poses a safety hazard nor is located upon a state right-of-way, thereby satisfying the fourth prong.7/ This leaves only the second prong, which asks if the sign would have met the criteria for licensure at any time after it was erected. The selection of any time period subsequent to 1993 would surely doom the application, as the sign would be unable to satisfy the minimum spacing requirement due to its close physical proximity to the double-stack billboard——which, as noted previously, was issued a permit in 1993 and remains licensed. Prior to 1993, however, there does not appear to be any spacing conflict that would preclude licensure in this instance.8/ With the spacing concern resolved (and the relevant period of inquiry narrowed to "any" time between 1976 and 1993), the undersigned turns to the only other criterion for licensure that appears to be in dispute: section 479.111(2), Florida Statutes, which authorizes the issuance of a permit only if the sign is located in "commercial-zoned and industrial-zoned areas or commercial-unzoned or industrial-unzoned areas." Unfortunately, this issue cannot be resolved on the instant record, for there is a dearth of persuasive evidence concerning the zoning designation of the third parcel (the location of the "Exit Now" sign) during the critical period of inquiry. Indeed, the record contains only the Department's speculative assumption that, because the area is presently unzoned, it therefore must have been unzoned at all times in the past.9/ Further, even accepting the Department's assumption at face value, it is impossible to determine whether the business activities conducted on the parcel from 1976 until the mid- 1990s——namely, the manufacture of candy and jelly and the sale of pecans——would satisfy the use test at any time between 1976 and 1993.10/ Under ordinary circumstances, such an absence of evidence would necessitate an adverse result for the permit applicant. Owing, however, to the unusual history and posture of this case, as well as the undersigned's conclusion that the pre-2014 grandfather provision should govern, it is recommended that the Department reevaluate Mr. Nobles' application to determine if the third parcel could have satisfied the requirements of 479.111(2) at any point between 1976 and 1993. Eligibility for Licensure – "Big O's" The undersigned turns next to the "Big O's" sign, which, like the "Exit Now" billboard, is unable to satisfy current licensing criteria due, among other reasons, to its close proximity to the double-stack billboard.11/ Further, as with the "Exit Now" billboard, the fact that the "Big O's" sign was previously exempt from licensure (owing to its on-premises status from 1976 through the mid-1990s) renders it ineligible for licensure under the 2014 codification of the grandfather provision. However, in sharp contrast to the "Exit Now" billboard, the "Big O's" sign is positioned within 500 feet of an interstate exit ramp, thereby constituting a safety hazard. This distinction is fatal to Mr. Nobles, as every codification of the grandfather provision from the mid-90s (when the sign lost its on-premises status) onward has prohibited the licensure of billboards that present a safety issue. The short of it, then, is that the sign was no more eligible for licensure in the past than it is today, which obviates the need for any further analysis under the pre-2014 version of the grandfather provision. For the reasons articulated above, Mr. Nobles has failed to prove that the "Big O's" sign is exempt from licensure by virtue of the "on-premises" exception. Further, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that, due to safety concerns, the sign would not have been eligible for licensure at any point in time. Accordingly, the undersigned is constrained to recommend the sign's removal pursuant to section 479.105. II. DOAH Case No. 14-4928 As noted earlier in this Order, DOAH Case No. 14-4928 involves an allegation that Mr. Nobles engaged in——or benefitted from——the unpermitted removal, cutting, or trimming of vegetation. The relevant facts are recounted below. On January 21, 2013, Mr. Nobles executed a lease agreement with Michael McDougal, who owns a parcel of land adjacent to the eastbound lanes of I-10, approximately .6 miles from County Road 257. In relevant part, the terms of the lease authorized Mr. Nobles to place on the property a pickup truck, attached to which was a billboard that advertised the I-10 Pecan House. Shortly thereafter, in late January 2013, Mr. Nobles relocated the truck to a position on Mr. McDougal's property a short distance to the south of the fence line that separates the parcel from the Department's right-of-way. But trouble soon followed: in late February or early March, the Department received several reports of unusual vegetation removal in the general area of Mr. Nobles' truck sign. In response, the Department requested one of its contractors, Metric Engineering, Inc. ("Metric"), to conduct a field inspection of the area. The inspection was performed on or about March 12, 2013, by Bill Armstrong, a certified arborist employed by Metric. During the course of his inspection, Mr. Armstrong observed, first, an area that the Department had previously cleared to facilitate the installation of a new fence, which had yet to be installed. This particular area, which ran along the length of the fence line and had been cleared within the preceding six months, had a width (as measured from the fence toward the roadway) of approximately 12 feet. Immediately beyond this 12-foot zone, however, Mr. Armstrong noticed evidence of other activity that had occurred much more recently. Specifically, Mr. Armstrong observed, on the side of the fence immediately opposite Mr. Nobles' truck, an area 120 feet in length (parallel to the fence line) and approximately 25 feet in width that had been cleared of vegetation. Within this 120 by 25 foot area, Mr. Armstrong discovered 30 tree stumps, which, upon close examination, exhibited signs of having been recently cut. Such indications included the presence of sawdust; the fact that the stumps were bright in color and relatively clean; and the observation of fresh debris at both ends of the swath. These findings were recorded in a report dated March 25, 2013, which Metric promptly forwarded to Morris Pigott, the Department's Project Manager of Vegetation and Resource Management. Several weeks later, Mr. Pigott conducted his own site visit, during which he examined the particular area that had concerned Mr. Armstrong. Consistent with the findings contained in Metric's report, Mr. Pigott observed, within the 120 by 25 foot area, numerous, freshly-cut tree stumps. Mr. Pigott further concluded, quite reasonably, that this activity had not been performed by the Department or one of its contractors, for the stumps had not been cut to ground level, the vegetation immediately to the east and west of the area was "very dense," and the area had not been "grubbed."12/ (As explained during the final hearing, "grubbing" involves the removal of the top six inches of surface material, an action designed to prevent regrowth.) To cinch matters, Mr. Pigott observed that the selective clearing of the 120 by 25 foot area had enhanced the visibility of Mr. Nobles' truck-mounted billboard for eastbound traffic. Thereafter, on April 14, 2013, Mr. Pigott cited Mr. Nobles for violating section 479.106(7), which provides that any person who engages in or benefits from the unauthorized removal of vegetation shall be subject to an administrative penalty. Mr. Pigott further notified Mr. Nobles that, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.057, the Department intended to assess mitigation in the amount of $8,304.25. Mr. Nobles promptly denied any and all involvement in the removal, claiming that a road crew had cleared the vegetation two years earlier. In response, Mr. Pigott contacted Mr. Armstrong, disclosed Mr. Nobles' explanation, and asked that a follow-up inspection be performed. Mr. Armstrong conducted his second inspection on August 8, 2013. At that time, Mr. Armstrong observed that Mr. Nobles' truck-mounted billboard was still present, and that the stumps within the 120 by 25 foot area had sprouted and grown to a height of two to three feet. Samples of the sprouts were collected, which Mr. Armstrong later examined for evidence of internodes——i.e., rings that denote growth, with one ring forming during each growing season. Due to the absence of internodes, Mr. Armstrong concluded that the stumps were in their first growing season, thereby eliminating any possibility that the vegetation had been cleared several years earlier.13/ Finding that the evidence proves clearly and convincingly that Mr. Nobles benefitted from the unauthorized vegetation removal, the undersigned turns finally to the question of mitigation. As noted above, the Department seeks mitigation in the amount of $8,304.25, a figure derived from Mr. Armstrong's use of the formula referenced in rule 14-10.057. It is at this juncture that the Department's case falters. Although Mr. Armstrong offered credible testimony concerning the number and species of trees (water oaks, Florida maples, and the like) that were removed from the area, the record evidence regarding their market value consists entirely of hearsay. Indeed, the Department called no witness who possessed any firsthand knowledge as to the market value of the trees; instead, it presented only the testimony of Mr. Armstrong, who explained that he had telephoned three nurseries, obtained price quotes over the phone, averaged the three figures, and plugged the averages into the formula. To be clear, the undersigned has no quarrel with either the formula or Mr. Armstrong's initial reliance upon the price quotes. The problem is that, in the absence of a stipulation from Mr. Nobles concerning the amount of mitigation, the Department was obligated to adduce at least some non-hearsay evidence of the market values——the starting point of the calculations. Inasmuch as the record is devoid of such evidence, the Department's request for mitigation must be denied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: DOAH Case No. 14-4926 RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order finding that the billboard identified in Notice of Violation 1487 ("Big O's") is illegal and subject to removal pursuant to section 479.105, Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Department enter a final order denying the related application for an outdoor advertising permit. DOAH Case No. 14-4927 RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation take no further action on Notice of Violation 1352 until such time that it reevaluates (under the pre-July 1, 2014, codification of section 479.105) the related application for an outdoor advertising permit. If the application is granted, the Department should enter a final order dismissing Notice of Violation 1352. In the event, however, the application is once again denied, the Department should afford Respondent a point of entry into the administrative process. DOAH Case No. 14-4928 RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 479.106, Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 4th day of May, 2015.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of Sections 479.07(1)(2)(4)(6) and 479.02, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact A notice of alleged violations was sent to Respondent dated October 27, 1975 stating that pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 479, Section 335.13 and Section 339.301, Florida Statutes, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, the Respondent was notified that the sign structures owned by him were in violation of provisions of Chapter 479, Sections 335.13 and 339.301, Florida Statutes. The subject signs were identified as follows: Copy: Aucilla Plaza Church - Gas Location: 2/10 miles north Junction I-10 Highway: State Road 257 Copy: Credit Cards Honored - Chevrolet 60 9/10, Supr. 65.0 Location: 2/10 miles north Junction I-10 Highway: State Road 257 Prior to the hearing a letter was received from an attorney for the Respondent, Ike Anderson, stating that the Respondent was willing to take down all of the signs and that a hearing was not needed. No Motion for Dismissal was made and no continuance or dismissal was ordered. By letter to the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, the Hearing Officer advised of the receipt of such communications, but no response was received from Petitioner. The hearing was called to order and the witness for Petitioner testified that the signs have been removed except the copy of one of the signs is leaning in the approximate same location against the fence. The poles from which the signs were erected are left standing in the same location. The Hearing Officer further finds: That poles standing alone do not constitute a sign; That a facing of a sign leaning against a fence with the face away from a highway does not constitute a sign. It is the duty of the Department of Transportation under Chapter 479, F.S., Chapter 335, F.S., and Chapter 339, F.S., to enforce the outdoor advertising laws of the State of Florida and that the Respondent, John Taylor, has had a hearing, as provided in Chapter 120, F.S., and as provided in Section 479.17, F.S., and Section 335.13, F.S.
Recommendation Enter an order requiring the removal of outdoor advertising signs erected at this location. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of May, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND 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 Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. John Taylor Route 1, Box 142 Monticello, Florida 32344 Ike Anderson, Esquire P. O. Box 56 Monticello, Florida 32344
Findings Of Fact The property on which the structure was located was acquired by the Department of Transportation (DOT) for roadway purposes. The project was part of a federal program for road improvement. The structure in controversy is an outdoor advertising sign owned by Patrick Media. Relocation benefits were offered by the DOT pursuant to the Federal Uniform Relocation Act. This sign was a legal nonconforming sign at the time of taking. Patrick Media had a leasehold interest in the site on which the sign was located. Patrick Media has removed the structure. The structure in question was comprised of two facings (V-shaped configuration), lights, service ladders and catwalks. It was built in 1978 and has been in continuous service since that time. The site is leased on a year to year renewable basis with either party able to terminate the lease at the expiration of the lease year. Contracts with advertisers involve multiple locations with price depending upon the number of motorists passing the sign per unit of time. Revenue received from face A (facing west) from August 15, 1990 to May 5, 1991 was $3739 (net) and from face B (east facing) from May 25, 1990 to May 25, 1991 was $2288 (net). As a nonconforming sign, the sign could not have been rebuilt if destroyed had the site not been acquired by DOT. Shortly after the introduction of Chapter 479 into the Laws of Florida and the possibility of requiring the nonconforming signs to be purchased by DOT for removal, DOT met with sign companies and developed a format for determining compensation to be paid for removing these nonconforming signs. A copy of the format completed for the sign in issue here was admitted as Exhibit 1. (Form 178-507 4/83) Additionally, Comparative Cost Multipliers (Exhibit 2) is used to determine the inflation caused adjustment to be applied to structures built in earlier years. Exhibit 1 computed the estimated value of the sign in issue at $11,674.53. However, this compensation did not include catwalks or time clock. The removed sign has negligible salvage value.
Recommendation It is recommended that the fair value of the sign in issue be recalculated to add the value of catwalks and time clock to the total before applying the multiplier and that a Final Order be entered finding that total so calculated to be the fair market value of Patrick Media's sign. DONE and ORDERED this 20 day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth G. Repaal, Esquire Post Office Box 1441 St. Petersburg, FL 33731 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 ATTN: Eleanor Turner MS 58 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1992.
The Issue Whether the sign of Respondent violates Section 479.07 and Section 479.02, Florida Statutes by violation of the permit and spacing requirements of the Outdoor Advertising Act.
Findings Of Fact An application was made for a permit for the subject sign and the application was denied on the basis that the sign was within the 500 foot spacing requirement, the sign being erected approximately in the middle of the distance between two outdoor advertising sign which are approximately 500 feet apart. The sign advertises Oaks Trading Post. The sign has been erected for many years and has carried messages such as "Elect Askew for Governor" and "Vote Democratic" or other political advertisements. The sign now advertises a commercial establishment and has since, at least, December of 1976. This sign does not bear a permit although the Respondent admitted that it is a commercial sign. 3.. The Respondent has paid the required license fees for the subject sign for more than the last 20 years to the City of Rockledge, Florida.
Recommendation Remove the subject sign. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Anthony Ninos 112 Riverside Drive Cocoa, Florida 32922
