The Issue Whether the State of Florida, Department of Transportation ("Department") properly denied Carter Pritchett Advertising, Inc.'s ("Carter") applications for outdoor advertising sign permits.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Carter and CBS are licensed to engage in the business of outdoor advertising in the state of Florida. The Department is the agency vested with the responsibility to administer and enforce the provisions of chapter 479, Florida Statutes, including the approval and denial of applications for permits for outdoor advertising signs that are located within 660 feet or less of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of any portion of the interstate and are visible from the main-traveled way of such interstate. The CBS Applications On July 28, 2009, CBS submitted two applications to the Department for outdoor advertising permits for a V-shaped sign at 1490 Northwest Third Avenue, Miami, Florida, adjacent to Interstate 395 ("I-395"). The CBS applications sought permitting to I-395. At the time CBS submitted its applications to the Department, the location of the proposed sign was within 660 feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way of the on-ramp connecting I-395 to Interstate 95 ("I-95"), which is a controlled area. Thus, CBS's proposed sign required a permit issued by the Department. Outdoor advertising signs may be permitted only in commercial-zoned or unzoned commercial or unzoned industrial areas. A commercial zone is an area identified in both the local government's Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") and in local zoning regulations as allowing commercial or industrial uses. On August 13, 2009, the Department issued a Notice of Denied Outdoor Advertising Application to CBS. The Department stated the following reasons for denying CBS's applications: Sign does not meet spacing requirements (1500' for interstates, 1000' for FAP). In conflict with permitted sign(s), tag#(s): BR203/BW544. Held by: CLEAR CHANNEL OTDR – S FLORIDA DIV. [s. 479.07(9)(a), 1.,&2.FS] Location is not permittable under land use designations of site. [s. 479.111(2), FS] CBS's applications were for a pilot program sign to be permitted to I-395. Pursuant to section 470.07(9)(c), Florida Statutes (2009), pilot program signs reduce the spacing requirements for interstates from 1,500 feet to 1,000 feet. However, at the time CBS submitted its applications, the City of Miami had not yet adopted a resolution expressing its intent to participate in a pilot program. At the time CBS submitted its applications, the parcel on which the proposed sign was to be located was zoned Parks and Recreation. In addition, the parcel was designated Recreation on the FLUM. The Department would not issue a permit for an outdoor advertising sign located in a parcel zoned Parks and Recreation and designated Recreation on the FLUM. On September 11, 2009, CBS filed a Petition for Formal Proceedings, challenging the Department's denial of its applications. The Department never transferred the CBS Petition to DOAH prior to taking final action on the CBS applications. Pursuant to Resolution R 09-0451, enacted by the City of Miami on September 24, 2009, the City of Miami resolved to express its intent to participate in a pilot program allowing 1,000 foot spacing of outdoor advertising sings along expressways in the City of Miami. Furthermore, the City of Miami resolved to authorize placement of billboards in parks, including the Overtown Plaza, where CBS proposed to locate its sign. After CBS submitted its applications, the City of Miami enacted a new zoning ordinance which is commonly referred to as "Miami 21." Miami 21 became effective on May 20, 2010. On May 20, 2010, the City of Miami informed the Department that the City of Miami had accepted the location of the proposed CBS sign into the City of Miami's pilot program, thereby allowing 1000 foot spacing in the City of Miami consistent with the pilot program authorized by section 479.07(9)(c), Florida Statutes. On May 21, 2010, CBS provided the Department with information regarding the updated zoning and FLUM designation(s) of the proposed site based on the newly implemented Miami 21. The new zoning of the proposed sign location was T6-8 O, which allows for commercial, residential and other uses, and the new FLUM designation was Restricted Commercial, which allows for commercial and residential uses. The evaluation used to determine satisfaction of the criteria outlined in sections 479.01(23) (2009) and 479.01(26) (2011), is commonly referred to as the "Use Test." The Department utilizes the Use Test where a parcel of land is designated by the FLUM of the comprehensive plan for multiple uses that include commercial or industrial uses but are not specifically designated for commercial or industrial uses under the land development regulations. Under the Use Test, a property that is zoned to allow for commercial or industrial uses, in addition to other uses, is examined to determine if surrounding commercial or industrial uses exist near the property that are visible to the main- traveled way of the roadway where the sign is to be permitted. There must be three or more separate and distinct conforming industrial or commercial activities, at least one of which is located on the same side of the highway and within 800 feet of the sign location; the commercial or industrial activities must be within 660 feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way; and the commercial or industrial activities must be within 1600 feet of each other. Under the Use Test, certain activities are not recognized as commercial activities, such as activities not "visible" from the main-traveled way. Thus, to satisfy the Use Test, the applicant must demonstrate that there are three commercial or industrial activities within the required spacing which are visible from the main-traveled way. To be visible, the commercial or industrial activities must be capable of being seen from the main-traveled way without visual aid by a person of normal acuity and be generally recognizable as commercial or industrial. Due to the land use designation and zoning of the parcel on which the CBS sign was to be located, CBS submitted information to the Department to demonstrate that it satisfied the Use Test. In May 2012, the Department conducted a Use Test in connection with the CBS applications by evaluating commercial uses along I-395. The Department determined that the CBS applications satisfied the Use Test. On August 7, 2012, the Department entered into a settlement agreement with CBS in which the Department agreed to grant permits for CBS's pilot program sign to be located at 1490 Northwest Third Avenue, Miami, Florida, adjacent to I-395. The settlement agreement was incorporated into a Final Order dated August 14, 2012, dismissing CBS's request for an administrative hearing. On August 22, 2012, the Department issued CBS permits with tag numbers CI 138/CI 139. The Carter Applications On October 15, 2010, Carter submitted two outdoor advertising permit applications for a double-faced sign to be located 535 feet west of Northwest Fourth Avenue in Miami, Florida and to be permitted to I-95. The Carter applications were assigned Department File Numbers 58077 and 58078. Carter's applications were not submitted as pilot program signs. They were submitted for 1,500 foot spacing. The location of the proposed Carter sign is within a condominium complex ("Town Park Village Number 1"), specifically, a parking lot adjacent to the same on-ramp connecting I-395 and I-95 as the CBS applications (between Northwest Fifteenth Street and Northwest Fourth Avenue). The Carter applications, however, sought permitting to I-95. Carter's proposed sign is 660 feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way of the east side of I-95, which is a controlled area. Thus, Carter's proposed sign requires a permit issued by the Department. The location of the proposed Carter sign is designated as Restricted Commercial on the FLUM for the City of Miami, which designation allows for commercial and residential uses. The zoning of the parcel is T5-O, which allows for commercial, residential, and other uses. By letter dated November 15, 2010, the Department notified Carter that its applications would be held by the Department without action until a prior hearing request was resolved. The letter did not identify who filed the referenced prior hearing request. The prior hearing request concerned the CBS applications. Due to the land use designation and zoning of the parcel for the Carter proposed sign, the Department determined that Carter must satisfy the Use Test set forth in section 479.01(26), Florida Statutes (2012). Carter acknowledges that it must satisfy the Use Test in order to obtain the permits. Whether Carter has satisfied the requirements of the Use Test by establishing that there are three commercial or industrial activities visible from the main-traveled way of I-95 is a dispositive factual issue to be determined by the undersigned. Carter identified for the Department three commercial activities near the proposed Carter sign, and within the required spacing, that Carter contends are visible from the main-traveled way of I-95, and thus, satisfy the Use Test. These are the Overtown Shopping Plaza, Two Guys Restaurant, and Black Kutz Barbershop. The location of the proposed Carter sign is within 800 feet for the southwestern corner of Overtown Plaza. The Department does not contest these measurements, or that Overtown Plaza is within 660 feet from the nearest edge of the right-of- way. Two Guys Restaurant is located on Northwest Third Avenue, and is 1,170 feet from the southwest corner of Overtown Plaza. Two Guys Restaurant is 580 feet west of the northbound I-95 right-of-way line. The Department does not contest these measurements. Black Kutz Barbershop is located on Northwest Third Avenue, and is 1,465 feet from the southwest corner of Overtown Plaza. Black Kutz Barbershop is 496 feet west of the northbound I-95 right-of-way line. The Department does not contest these measurements. Overtown Plaza, Two Guys Restaurant, and Black Kutz Barbershop are within 1,600 feet of each other. The Department does not contest these measurements. The Department conducted a Use Test in connection with the Carter applications by evaluating the visibility of the three purported commercial uses along I-95 proposed by Carter (Overtown Plaza, Two Guys Restaurant, and Black Kutz Barbershop). The Department determined that the Carter applications did not satisfy the Use Test because Overtown Plaza, Two Guys Restaurant, and Black Kutz Barbershop, are not visible from the main-traveled way of I-95, as required by section 479.01(26)(b)4., Florida Statutes (2012). If any of these purported three businesses (Overtown Plaza, Two Guys Restaurant, and Black Kutz Barbershop) are not visible from the main-traveled way of I-95, then Carter has not satisfied the requirements of the Use Test. The photographs relied on by Carter and the persuasive evidence presented at hearing establish that Black Kutz Barbershop and Two Guys Restaurant are not visible from the main- traveled way of I-95. At hearing and in its Proposed Recommended Order, Carter relies on two photographs taken by Mr. "Bo" Hodges from the main-traveled way of I-95 (Carter's Exhibits 17 and 18), to demonstrate that Black Kutz Barbershop and Two Guys Restaurant are, in fact, visible from the main-traveled way of I-95. Exhibits 17 and 18 and the persuasive evidence presented at hearing fail to establish that Black Kutz Barbershop and Two Guys Restaurant are, in fact, visible from the main- traveled way of I-95. Two Guys Restaurant and Black Kutz Barbershop are obstructed from view by trees and other structures. At best, only portions of the buildings that house the two businesses can be glimpsed from the main-traveled way of I-95. Neither the photographs (Exhibits 17 and 18), nor the persuasive evidence presented at hearing, demonstrate that the buildings contain commercial activity. Catching a glimpse of a portion of the buildings does not mean that the buildings contain commercial activity. A glimpse of a building does not establish that a commercial activity is visible from the main-traveled way. In sum, the photographs relied on by Carter, and the persuasive evidence presented at hearing, fail to establish that Two Guys Restaurant and Black Kutz Barbershop are visible from the main- traveled way of I-95.2/ Notably, the Department presented photographic and video evidence of its recent Use Test with respect to Carter's applications (Department's Exhibits 5 and 6). The photographic and video inspection was conducted by Mr. Mark Johnson, a Department Outdoor Advertising Inspector, during his inspection on January 4, 2014. Mr. Johnson testified that neither Black Kutz Barbershop nor Two Guys Restaurant are visible from the main- traveled way of I-95. The undersigned's review of the video and photographs relied on by Mr. Johnson do not show otherwise.3/ Mr. Pye, the Department's Supervisor of Field Operations, testified that he drove along the main-traveled way of I-95 just before the final hearing. He was able to merely catch a glimpse of a corner of the building in which Two Guys Restaurant is located, and the top portion of the corner of a building in which Black Kutz Barbershop is located. However, he was unable to determine that there was commercial activity. After a careful consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, the undersigned finds, as ultimate facts, that Two Guys Restaurant and Black Kutz Barbershop are not visible from the main-traveled way of I-95. Two Guys Restaurant and Black Kutz Barbershop are not capable of being seen from the main- traveled way of I-95 without visual aid by a person of normal visual acuity, and they are not generally recognizable from the main-traveled way of I-95 as commercial. Accordingly, Carter failed to satisfy the Use Test, and the Department properly denied Carter's applications. Based on the undersigned's finding that Two Guys Restaurant and Black Kutz Barbershop are not capable of being seen from the main-traveled way of I-95 without visual aid by a person of normal visual acuity, and they are not generally recognizable from the main-traveled way of I-95 as commercial, there is no need to address any of the other factual contentions of the parties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Carter's applications for outdoor advertising sign permits (Department File Numbers 58077 and 58078). DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 1st day of May, 2014.
Findings Of Fact On July 20, 1987, a DOT sign inspector observed a portable outdoor advertising sign along U.S. 19 near the intersection of 108th Street North in Pinellas County which appeared to be located on the DOT right-of-way. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 at this location extends 100 feet east and west of the centerline of U.S. 19 and 50 feet from the edge of the paved lane. Measurements taken showed the sign to be 38 feet from the edge of the pavement. Photos taken of the sign at the time the sign was inspected reveal that the sign was damaged with the frame bent. Around noon of the day the sign was inspected, Respondent was notified by the user of the sign that the sign's frame had been bent and the sign damaged. A second call to Respondent around 1:30 P.M. advised that a warning notice had been placed on the sign. When Herb Selak arrived at the scene shortly thereafter, he observed the anchor missing from the sign and the sign damaged apparently having been hit by a construction company vehicle and pushed off of the parking lot where it had been located and anchored. Prior to the unauthorized removal of the sign onto the right-of-way by a third party, the sign was lawfully placed.
Findings Of Fact On February 9, 1982, George King, Sign Inspector for the Department of Transportation, observed and checked a sign located approximately three-tenths of a mile east of the Hendry County line on state Road U.S. 27, in Palm Beach County, Florida. State Road U.S. 27 is a federal-aid primary highway which is open and utilized by the traveling public. The sign in question, which is visible from U.S. 27, advertises "Cape Realty" and is located approximately two feet off of the right-of-way line, outside the city limits in an area zoned agricultural. At the time the sign was inspected on February 9, 1982, there was no state permit attached to the sign. An examination of the photograph of the subject sign taken by the inspector on December 14, 1982, at the same location, shows no state permit affixed to the structure. Additionally, by timely failing to answer admissions requested by Petitioner, the Respondent is deemed to have admitted ownership and that the subject sign was erected without a state permit in an unpermittable zoning area, outside any incorporated city of town, adjacent to and visible from the main traveled way of U.S. 27.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Transportation finding that the sign in question is in violation of applicable rules and statutes and should be removed. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Department of Administration 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 8 day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mrs. Flora Elena Caso c/o Cape Investment Realty, Inc. 417 West Sugarland Highway Clewiston, Florida 33440 John Beck, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation's Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit should be upheld pursuant to Section 479.04, Florida Statutes (2006).1
Findings Of Fact Lamar is a company which owns and maintains road-side signs, signboards or billboards within the State of Florida. One such billboard (referred to hereinafter as the "Sign") is located on U.S. Highway 41 approximately three-tenths of a mile north of Tuckers Boulevard in Charlotte County. The Sign was given Permit Number 5202 by DOT. This Sign is a nonconforming sign, meaning that it was lawfully erected but does not comply with state or local laws enacted after it was built. DOT conducted a statewide inventory of signs in 1998 and established a database for use in monitoring nonconforming signs in the future. The database includes the type of sign; its date and method of construction; the height, including the Height Above Ground Level (HAGL); its location; whether the sign is lighted or not; and other identifying information about the sign. The inventory of signs is updated at least every two years, but generally is done on an annual basis. On August 13, 2004, during Hurricane Charley, the Sign sustained damage, which required certain repairs. Repairs of nonconforming signs is allowed, but signs are not supposed to be structurally changed during the repair. Petitioner undertook a repair of the Sign. During the course of the repairs, the Sign underwent two changes. One, the HAGL of the sign went from two feet to approximately five feet. HAGL is the distance from the ground to the bottom of the lowest sign face. Two, the Sign was repaired using four support poles instead of the three poles it had when it became nonconforming. Based upon information contained in its database, DOT concluded that the repairs resulted in unauthorized structural changes. DOT issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit (the "Notice") on March 21, 2006. The Notice alleged the Sign had been structurally altered and was no longer the same as when it had become nonconforming. The Notice cited Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2)(a) as the basis for the intent to revoke. That Rule relates to modifications of a sign "such as conversion of a back-to-back sign to V type, or conversion of a wooden sign structure to a metal structure . . .". The Notice included a statement that revocation of the sign permit would become final in 30 days, unless Lamar either: (1) provided information to DOT sufficient to resolve the issue or (2) requested an administrative hearing. Lamar availed itself of the second option and, timely, filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing. The DOT Notice did not specify exactly which changes to the Sign constituted a violation of Department rules. It merely cited to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2)(a). During the discovery phase of this action, Lamar ascertained that the violations were: (1) the HAGL had been raised from two feet to over five feet; and (2) there were four support posts instead of the original three. This information was discovered by Lamar as a result of interrogatory responses from DOT. The interrogatories had been propounded on September 22, 2006, but were not answered until December 13, 2006, some 82 days later. Upon determining the exact nature of the violation, Lamar undertook to have the repairs corrected so that the Sign was set at the correct HAGL of two feet and one support post was removed. The correcting construction work was accomplished within seven days of discovering the nature of DOT's complaint. As of the date of the final hearing, the Sign had been returned to its condition as of the date it became nonconforming.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation withdrawing its Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 20th day of February, 2007.
Findings Of Fact On November 3, 1982, outdoor advertising sign permits AR946-06 and AK947-06 were issued by the Department of Transportation to Sandy Advertising Company. The permits were for a location on the west (north) side of U.S. Highway 90 approximately two miles east of its intersection with U.S. Highway 29 within the city limits of Pensacola, Florida. Sandy Advertising Company transferred those permits to Lamar Advertising Company of Pensacola, Inc. Annual renewal payments have been made each year in a timely manner by Lamar Advertising Company of Pensacola, Inc. No permit tags have been displayed at the Lamar sites and no sign has been built or maintained at the Lamar sites since issuance of the permits. Without having submitted an application for a permit to the Department of Transportation, Outdoor Media of Pensacola, Inc., obtained a building permit from the City of Pensacola for the erection of an outdoor advertising sign located in Escambia County approximately 3,790 feet east of State Road 296 on the north side of U.S. Highway 90. Pursuant to the building permit, Outdoor Media erected a sign at that location. The sign had an east and a west face and was less than 500 feet from the site for which permits AK946-06 and AK947-06 were issued. Each face of the sign required a separate permit from the Department of Transportation. Learning of the erection of Outdoor Media's sign, the Department notified Petitioner to remove it. Instead Outdoor Media applied for two sign permits for each face of the sign. On August 8, 1988, the Department of Transportation received Petitioner's applications for a state outdoor advertising permit. The applications were for each face of the sign located on U.S. 90 (Scenic Highway), a federal aid primary highway in Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. The applications were denied on the ground that two other permits, permit AK946- 06 and permit AK947-06, had been issued to Lamar Advertising of Pensacola, Inc., for a location on the same side of the highway within one thousand feet of Petitioner's site. The spacing impediment caused by the earlier permits is the sole basis for denial of Petitioner's permit applications by the Department of Transportation. Petitioner meets all other permit requirements. In 1984, the legislature extensively revised Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. See Chapter 84-227, Laws of Florida. Of particular concern in this proceeding are the changes to Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, and whether those changes apply to permits AK946-06 and AK947-06. The revisions to this section introduced very specific tag display as well as sign erection and maintenance requirements for all permits. The revisions increased the fee schedules and provided that all permits expire annually on January 15. Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, as amended states in part: (5)(a) For each permit issued, the department shall furnish to the applicant a serially numbered permanent metal permit tag. The permittee is responsible for maintaining a valid permit tag on each permitted sign facing at all times. The tag shall be securely attached to the sign facing or, if there is no facing, on the pole nearest the highway; and it shall be attached in such a manner as to be plainly visible from the main-traveled way. The permit will become void unless the permit tag is properly and permanently displayed at the permitted site within 30 days after the date of permit issuance. If the permittee fails to erect a completed sign on the permitted site within 270 days after the date on which the permit was issued, the permit will be void, and the department may not issue a new permit to that permittee for the same location for 270 days after the date on which the permit became void. (b) If a permit tag is lost, stolen, or destroyed, the permittee to whom the tag was issued must apply to the department for a replacement tag. Upon receipt of the application accompanied by a service fee of $3, the department shall issue a replacement permit tag. A permit is valid only for the location specified in the permit. Valid permits may be transferred from one sign owner to another upon written acknowledgment from the current permittee and submittal of a transfer fee of $5 for each permit to be transferred. However, the maximum transfer fee for any multiple transfer between two outdoor advertisers in a single transaction is $100. A permittee shall at all times maintain the permission of the owner or other persons in lawful control of the sign site to have and maintain a sign at such site. (8)(a) All licenses and permits expire annually on January 15, and all license and permit renewal fees are required to be submitted to the department by no later than January 15. On or before November 1 of each year, the department shall send to each permittee a notice of fees due for all permits which were issued to him prior to September 30. Such notice shall list the permits and the permit fees due for each sign facing. The permittee shall, no later than January 1 of each year, advise the department of any additions, deletions, or errors contained in the notice. Permit tags which are not renewed shall be returned to the department shall be accounted for by the permittee in writing, which writing shall be submitted with the renewal fee payment. (b) If a permittee has not submitted his fee payment by January 15, the department shall, no later than February 1, send a notice of violation to the permittee, requiring the payment of the permit fee within 30 days after the date of the notice and payment of a delinquency fee equal to 10 percent of the original amount due or, in the alternative to these payments, requiring the filing of a request for an administrative hearing to show cause why his sign should not be subject to immediate removal due to expiration of his license or permit. If the permittee submits payment as required by the violation notice, his license or permit will be automatically reinstated and such reinstatement will be retroactive to January 15th. If the permittee does not respond to the notice of violation within the 30-day period, the department shall remove the sign without further notice and without incurring any liability as a result of such removal. (9)(a) A permit shall not be granted for any sign for which a permit had not been granted by the effective date of this act unless such sign is located at least: One thousand five hundred feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of the highway, if on an interstate highway. One thousand feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of the highway, if on a federal-aid primary highway. The minimum spacing provided in this paragraph does not preclude the permitting V-type, back-to-back, side- to-side, stacked, or double-faced signs at the permitted sign site. A permit shall not be granted for a sign pursuant to this chapter to locate such sign on any portion of the interstate or federal-aid primary highway system, which sign: Exceeds 50 feet in sign structure height above the crown of the main- traveled way, if outside an incorporated area; Exceeds 65 feet in sign structure height above the crown of the main- traveled way, if inside an incorporated area; or Exceeds 950 square feet of sign facing including all embellishments. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed so as to cause a sign which is conforming on the effective date of this act to become nonconforming. The effective date(s) of the amendments to Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, is stated in Section 27 of Law 84-227. Section 27 specifically and explicitly made permits issued prior to June 30, 1984 subject to the new provisions of Law 84-227. Section 27 states: This act shall take effect October 1, 1984, except that the amendments to Section 479.07 F.S. shall take effect July 1, 1984; however, any permit or license which is valid and applicable as of June 30, 1984, shall remain valid and applicable until January 15, 1985, unless the license or permit earlier expires or is revoked. [Emphasis supplied]. In spite of the language of Section 27, it is DOT's interpretation that for permits issued prior to July 1, 1984, permittees are not required to display tags within thirty (30) days and erect signs within 270 days as provided in Section 479.07(5)(a), Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 1984. DOT nonetheless requires pre-1984 permits to comply with Sections 479.07(5)(b) and (8)(a), Florida Statutes. While DOT's interpretation is not in writing and has not been promulgated as a rule pursuant to Sections 120.54 or 120.55, Florida Statutes, it is applied statewide and has been held to be an invalid unpromulgated rule in Case NO. 5227R, Final Order issued December 29th, 1988. DOT relies upon the definition of "non-conforming" signs given in Section 479.01(12), Florida Statutes. Section 479.01(12), Florida Statutes, states in part: `Nonconforming sign' means a sign which was lawfully erected but which does not comply with the land use, setback, size, spacing, and lighting provisions of state or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance passed at a later date or a sign which was lawfully erected but which later fails to comply with state or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance due to changed conditions. [Emphasis supplied.] 1/ DOT does not rely upon the exceptions listed in Section 479.16, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 84-227. The exceptions are numerous, but do not specifically enumerate "Pre-July 1, 1984 permits." It is DOT's view that permits issued before July 1, 1984, are valid with or without a sign being erected or tags maintained or displayed. These "secret signs" can only be discovered after the application is submitted and DOT checks its computer records. The effect of DOT's interpretation is that pre- 1984 outdoor advertising sign permits can exist into perpetuity without the holder thereof ever erecting a sign or posting a metal tag as long as the permittee renews its permit. This interpretation is directly opposed to the legislature's purpose in enacting the 1984 amendments, i.e., the prevention of advertisers stockpiling unused sites and permits. Moreover, this interpretation is contrary to the pre- or post-1984 statutory language and is not a reasonable interpretation of the statute. DOT bases it's interpretation on the ground that the constitution prohibits the retroactive application of the 1984 amendments to permits existing prior to the effective date of those amendments. DOT did not offer any evidence as to the accuracy of its view on the requirements of the constitution. Failing such evidentiary support, DOT has failed to carry its burden of proof when utilizing an unpromulgated rule on a case by case basis. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this cause. Section 120.57(1) Florida Statutes. Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, was amended by Chapter 84-227, Laws of Florida, to require that parties obtaining outdoor advertising permits post their permit tags within thirty (30) days and erect their signs within two hundred seventy (270) days or their permits would automatically become void. The amendment became effective July 1, 1984. The amendment also expressly and explicitly provided for treatment of pre-July 1, 1984 permits by stating" . . . any permit or license which is valid and applicable as of June 30, 1984, shall remain valid and applicable until January 15, 1985, unless the license or permit earlier expires or is revoked. [Emphasis supplied]. Section 479.01(12) only makes exceptions for nonconforming "signs lawfully erected." Section 479.07(9)(c) only provides that nothing in subsection (9), pertaining to spacing requirements or permitting of new signs after July 1, 1984, may be construed to cause a sign which is conforming on the effective date of the Act to become nonconforming. See the definition of "sign" contained in Section 479.01(14), Florida Statutes, and of "erect" contained in Section 479.01(4), Florida Statutes. However, in spite of the clear language of the statutes, DOT interprets the term "permitted signs" as including permits issued prior to July 1, 1984, but which have no sign erected on the site. DOT has placed an interpretation upon the statutes that is not apparent from their language. The plain language of Sections 479.01(12) and 479.07(9)(c) only applies to signs which have been constructed on the permit site. The sections do not apply where no sign has been constructed. Since no signs were ever erected on the sites covered by permit AK946-06 and AK947-06 neither Section 479.01(12) nor 479.07(9)(c) applies to Lamar's permits. Further, DOT interprets the amendment to Section 479.07, now codified as Section 479.07(5)(a), requiring permit display and sign erection within a specified time period, to be applicable only to permits initially issued after the effective date of July 1, 1984. The agency has not enforced that subsection against preexisting permits and renewals of such preexisting permits, irrespective of whether or not a sign has ever been erected on the permitted site. However, the agency has applied and enforced against preexisting permits all other portions of the amendments, including but not limited to the mandatory recurring uniform annual January 15 renewal date and increased renewal fee with regard to preexisting permits. The agency has taken this approach on the grounds that the constitution prohibited the amendment from being applied retroactively to such preexisting permits. In Administrative Case NO. 88-5227R, this interpretation was held to be an invalid unpromulgated rule. However, agencies have the choice of properly promulgating rules and applying them with the full force and effect of law or of fully explicating those policies by demonstrating the policies' reasonableness and factual accuracy on a case by case basis in Section 120.57 proceedings. McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Amos v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 444 So.2d (Fla, 1st DCA 1983); Gulf Coast Home Health Services Of Florida, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 513 So.2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). As noted earlier, the sole reason for DOT's policy was that it was required by the constitution. Such a bare bones claim as "the constitution requires it" is tantamount to the claim that was asserted in Florida Cities Water Company v. Florida Public Service Commission, 384 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 1980) that a previous statutory interpretation was "wrong as a matter of law." In Florida Cities, no record foundation was made for the non-rule policy being followed in that case. The Florida Supreme Court held that such a rationale was not sustainable absent adequate record support for the application of non-rule agency policy. In this case, DOT has failed to affirmatively show the reasonableness and factual accuracy of the policy that sign permits which were issued prior to July 1, 1984, should not be subject to Section 479.07(5), Florida Statutes, enforcement and should be treated as if they constituted, erected and maintained signs for purposes of Section 479.07(9), Florida Statutes. It is doubtful that DOT could ever show the accuracy of its view of the constitution. The case law in the area clearly establishes that permits such as these are not property in the constitutional sense. Such permits do not confer any right, estate or vested interest, and are revocable at the will of the legislature. Such permits are also subject to new permit conditions. State ex rel First Presbyterian Church of Miami v. Fuller, 187 So. 148 (Fla. 1939); City of Miami Beach v. Deauville Operating Corp., 129 So.2d 185 ( Fla. 3d DCA 1961) and Kawasaki of Tampa, Inc. v. Calvin, 348 So.2d 897 ( Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Moreover, the 1984 amendments to Chapter 479 do not require retroactive application to be applied to permits AK946-06 and AK947-06. The new permit conditions were applicable only upon the expiration of the old permits on January 15. Thereafter, the new permit conditions applied to the renewal. Therefore, since Lamar did not build any signs on the sites covered by either permit AK946-06 or AK947-06 within 270 days of its first renewal after the effective date of the statutory revisions to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and has not posted the required tags at the sites, permits AK946-06 and AK947-06 are void and cannot be used as a basis for denying Petitioner's sign applications. As in Florida Cities, having failed to establish the reasonableness and accuracy of its policy, the foregoing policy cannot form the basis of the permit denials. This is especially true in light of the fact that DOT's policy ignores the clear language of the statutory amendments.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order voiding Permits AK946-06 and AK947-06, held by Respondent, Lamar Advertising Company, Inc., and granting the applications of Outdoor Media of Pensacola, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 23rd day of May, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The outdoor advertising sign that is the subject of the instant proceeding (hereinafter referred to as the "Sign") is a billboard with steel "I" beams and iron stringers which sits perpendicular to U.S. Highway 1 approximately 1,800 feet south of Hypoluxo Road and approximately 1,000 feet north of Neptune Drive in Palm Beach County. Petitioner has owned the Sign since about 1978 or 1979, when it purchased the assets of the Sign's previous owner, Outdoor Media. The Sign was originally erected in 1963 by Ferrin Signs, Inc., pursuant to a permit issued by Palm Beach County. In 1967, Ferrin Signs, Inc., obtained a permit from Palm Beach County to perform further work on the sign. Shortly thereafter, Ferrin Signs, Inc., sold the Sign to Outdoor Media. Prior to March of 1970, the land on which the Sign is located was in the unincorporated area of Palm Beach County. In March of 1970, the land was annexed by the Town of Hypoluxo and has been within the Town's jurisdictional boundaries ever since. The Town of Hypoluxo has an ordinance currently in effect that regulates signs within the Town. The ordinance, like its predecessors dating back to 1961, prohibits "off premises signs." It also contains a section dealing with "nonconforming signs," which provides as follows: Signs or sign structures made nonconforming by this sign and signage code shall be governed by the following regulations: A sign existing within the town on or before November 30, 1992, which, because of its height, square foot area, location or other characteristics, does not conform to this article is hereby declared to be a nonconforming sign. A nonconforming sign under this subsection may be allowed to remain in existence, but if destroyed or allowed to deteriorate in excess of 50 percent of the depreciated value of the structure, it may not be replaced. The status afforded signs under this section shall not be applicable to any sign for which no sign permit was ever issued; such signs are deemed illegal signs and are subject to the provisions of this article governing illegal signs. No conforming sign or sign structure shall be permitted to be erected for the same property containing an existing nonconforming sign until the nonconforming sign has been removed or made conforming. An "off premises sign" that does not qualify for "nonconforming sign" status is subject to removal under the ordinance. The Town also has a building code. Under the code, a building permit is required before a sign within the Town may be altered or repaired. No building permit has ever been issued by the Town for any work to be performed on the Sign. On December 27, 1990, the Department issued a Notice of Violation alleging that Petitioner was maintaining the Sign without a state-issued outdoor advertising sign permit, as required by Section 497.07, Florida Statutes. In response to the Notice of Violation, Petitioner advised the Department that it would be filing an application for such a permit. Petitioner filed its application on January 12, 1993. The application was accompanied by, among other things, a copy of the 1963 Palm Beach County permit referred to in Finding of Fact 3 above. The application package, however, contained neither a permit for the Sign issued by the Town of Hypoluxo, nor a statement from any Hypoluxo official indicating that the Sign was eligible for such a permit or was otherwise allowable under the Town's sign ordinance. Accordingly, after receiving the application package, the Department contacted the Mayor of the Town, the Honorable Al Merion, to ascertain the Town's position on the matter. In conjunction therewith, it provided Mayor Merion with a copy of the 1963 Palm Beach County permit that had accompanied Petitioner's application. By letter dated January 25, 1993, Mayor Merion responded to the Department's inquiry. In his letter, he wrote: Receipt is hereby acknowledged of your fax transmittal containing a permit issued by Palm Beach County to the Ferrin Signs, Inc. on January 24, 1963. The permit issued by Palm Beach County is not valid because it is not within their [sic] jurisdiction to issue sign permits for property lying within the territorial boundaries of the Town of Hypoluxo. To the best of our knowledge, the Town of Hypoluxo has no record of a permit being issued to Ferrin Signs Inc. It should be noted that, in the past years, on numerous occasions, the billboard in question has been illegally constructionally altered by virtue of no permit having been obtained from the Town. On or about February 2, 1993, the Department returned Petitioner's application to Petitioner. In the Memorandum of Returned Application that it sent to Petitioner, the Department gave the following reason for denying the application: "local permit not provided for Town of Hypoluxo." Although the Town no longer contends that Palm Beach County was without authority to issue the 1963 pre-annexation permit for construction of the Sign, the Town still takes the position that, because of unpermitted post- annexation repairs and alterations, the Sign is prohibited and subject to removal under the Town's current sign ordinance. 1/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a state outdoor advertising sign permit. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of January, 1994. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 1994.
Findings Of Fact In May of 1980, the Petitioner, Peterson Outdoor Advertising purchased a sign from Lamar Advertising Company. This sign is located on the east side of State Road 434, approximately 350 feet north of State Road 50 in Orange County, Florida. This sign is a stacked, back to back structure, having two faces which face north and south. The face which is the subject of this proceeding is the south face which faces northbound traffic on State Road 434. This face is visible to traffic on the main-traveled way of State Road 50. When the Petitioner purchased the subject sign from Lamar, it checked the records of Lamar, and the records of the Department of Transportation and the orange County Building and Zoning Department, to ascertain that the sign had all required building permits, electrical permits, county permits and state permits, and that the sign site was a legal location. The sign had all the permits that were required. The relevant document from the Department of Transportation pertaining to the subject sign was a letter dated March 13, 1978, from the Department's district office to Lamar. This letter returned the permit applications that had been submitted by Lamar in February of 1978 seeking permits for the subject sign, for the reason that "your applications do not require a state permit". The parties stipulated that, prior to May of 1984, the personnel of the Department's Fifth District gave advice that signs along non-controlled roads within 660 feet of a federal-aid primary highway did not need a state sign permit. The Petitioner relied on the determination of the Department that the subject sign site did not require a state permit, and purchased the sign from Lamar. In May of 1984 the Fifth District personnel of the Department corrected their erroneous prior interpretation of the statutes and rules they administer, and permits were thereafter required for all signs within 660 feet of a federal-aid primary highway if they were visible from the main-traveled way of the controlled road. On July 1, 1985, the Department's outdoor advertising inspector advised the Petitioner that the south faces of the subject sign required a state permit. These are the faces in question in this proceeding. In compliance with this advice from the Department, the Petitioner filed permit applications for both the north faces and the south faces of the subject sign. The Department returned the applications for the north faces for the reason that a permit was not required. The north faces are not involved in this proceeding. The Department denied the Petitioner's applications for the south faces by memorandum dated October 8, 1985, for the reason that these faces conflicted with permits held by Maxmedia, Inc., in that they were not located more than 1,000 feet from the Maxmedia sign. The Maxmedia permits authorized a sign which was erected at a point 740 feet from the subject sign of the Respondent. The permits held by Maxmedia were issued by the Department on May 8, 1984. Prior to July 1, 1984, the spacing rule for signs on a federal-aid primary highway required 500 feet between signs. On July 1, 1984, this spacing requirement was increased to require 1,000 feet on a federal-aid primary highway. State Road 50 is a federal-aid primary highway, and the area within 660 feet from State Road 50 is a controlled area. The Petitioner's sign 350 feet north of State Road 50 was more than 500 feet from any other structure prior to July 1, 1984. It is not more than 1,000 feet from the Maxmedia signs now, however.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Peterson Outdoor Advertising for a permit on the east side of State Road 434, approximately 350 feet north of State Road 50, facing south, in Orange County, Florida, be GRANTED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 29th 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 29th day of October, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 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
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Atlantic Outdoor Advertising, Inc., has erected a sign adjacent to Southside Boulevard, approximately 346 feet from Atlantic Boulevard, in the City of Jacksonville, Florida. Atlantic Boulevard is a federal-aid primary highway, while Southside Boulevard is not. The place where the Respondent erected the subject sign is within 660 feet from Atlantic Boulevard, and this sign is visible from the main-traveled way of Atlantic Boulevard. The subject sign is approximately 300 feet from another sign, owned by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company, which was permitted by the Department in 1980 and 1981. The Naegele permits are still valid, and they authorize a sign within 660 feet of Atlantic Boulevard on the same side of the road as the Respondent's subject sign. When the Respondent erected its sign it had obtained a building permit from the City of Jacksonville, and it holds a lease to the site where the sign is located, but the Respondent does not have a state permit for its sign and no state sign permit has been applied for by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the outdoor advertising sign of the Respondent, Atlantic Outdoor Advertising, Inc., located adjacent to Southside Boulevard, approximately 346 feet from Atlantic Boulevard, in the City of Jacksonville, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 18th day of June, 1986 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 18th day of June, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-3021T Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but irrelevant. Accepted, but irrelevant. Accepted, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Paul M. Glenn, Esquire 2900 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s Outdoor Advertising Permit Applications should be denied due to application deficiencies, and because the signs are located adjacent to a designated scenic highway.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation regulates outdoor advertising signs located in proximity to the state highway system, interstate highway system, and federal-aid primary highway system. U.S. Highway 1 is a federal-aid primary highway that runs in a generally north/south direction along the east coast of Florida. In April l995, the Department issued outdoor advertising sign permit tag number BK459 to Town & Country Realty for an outdoor advertising sign (the “original sign”). The original sign was constructed adjacent to and on the west side of U.S. Highway 1 in Sebastian, Florida (the “property”). Records maintained by the Department during the period of the original sign’s existence, i.e., the Department’s outdoor advertising database from July 31, 2002, indicate that the original sign was located at U.S. Highway 1 milepost 18.496. That evidence, created contemporaneously with the sign’s existence, and before any controversy regarding the sign arose, is accepted as the most persuasive evidence of the precise location of the original sign. Mr. Pye testified that outdoor advertising sign permits are issued for a specific location, rather than for any location on a parcel of property. Given the precise spacing requirements for signs (see, e.g., section 479.07(9) and section 479.11), and the permitting of signs to the thousandths of a mile, Mr. Pye’s testimony is accepted. The original sign was located against a backdrop of vegetation. The original sign was single-sided with a north- facing sign face. As such, the original sign could normally be seen only from vehicles traveling southbound on U.S. Highway 1. On June 13, 2000, U.S. Highway 1, from milepost 14.267 to milepost 22.269 was designated as the Indian River Lagoon State Scenic Highway. The scenic highway designation included the stretch of U.S. Highway 1 on which the property fronts. On March 18, 2004, Henry Fischer & Sons, Inc./Town & Country Realty sold the property and the original sign to Petitioner. Daniel Taylor, a licensed real estate broker, worked on the transaction that led to Petitioner’s ownership of the property. He indicated that the property was desirable because it was clean, cleared, and demucked, and because it had the permitted original sign as an attractive asset, since the sign provided an income stream that could be used to pay property taxes. Eric Fischer, who was a director of Town & Country Realty, testified that, when the property was sold to Petitioner, the original sign was intended “to go with the property.” Upon the sale of the property and the original sign, Petitioner believed that Town & Country Realty would notify the state of the sale of the sign, and that he would thereafter be contacted by the state. Mr. Taylor testified that he and Petitioner called the Department and determined that Petitioner “could just step into the Fischer's shoes.” Based on the testimony of Petitioner and Mr. Taylor, Petitioner knew, or should have known, that the Department had regulatory oversight over the sign. An Outdoor Advertising Permit Transfer Request form is required to be submitted to the Department in order to transfer a sign permit from one person to another. No Outdoor Advertising Permit Transfer Request form was submitted for permit tag number BK459. Petitioner was never contacted by the state regarding the sale of the sign. Nonetheless, Petitioner continued to lease the sign and, as detailed herein, to replace and move the sign after the hurricanes of 2004. In September and October 2004, Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne struck Sebastian, Florida, very badly damaging the original sign. The wooden supports were flattened and no longer usable, and the sign was “pretty demolished.” Petitioner testified that he was told by an official of Indian River County to relocate the original sign to keep it from proximity of trees that could, in the event of a recurrence of the 2004 storms, topple and destroy the sign. The testimony, which was intended to prove the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that Petitioner was directed by a governmental representative to relocate the sign, was uncorroborated by evidence that would be admissible over objection in a civil trial. Petitioner hired a person to rebuild a sign on the property. When the sign was rebuilt, it was not replaced at its original location at milepost 18.496. Rather, the “rebuilt sign”1/ was moved to the cleared center of the property at milepost 18.535. Instead of a single-faced sign normally visible to northbound traffic, the rebuilt sign was a double-faced sign, with sides facing north and south. As such, the rebuilt sign could be seen by vehicles traveling U.S. Highway 1 in either direction. The original sign had four equally-spaced square support posts. The rebuilt sign has three equally-spaced round, and more substantial, support poles. The rebuilt sign has 11 horizontal stringers on each face, with each stringer secured to the three support posts. The stringers are uniform in appearance. The photographs of the rebuilt sign clearly show all of the stringers on one side, and some of the stringers on the other. The stringers show no evidence of having undergone storm damage, or of having been secured to support posts at different points along the stringers. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the stringers were -- as were the posts -- new, stronger, intact materials when the rebuilt sign was constructed, and were not materials salvaged from the remains of the original sign. The original plywood facing on the original sign was replaced with vinyl facings on the rebuilt sign. As a result of the foregoing, a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the rebuilt sign was a new sign erected of entirely new materials, and was not established as a result of maintenance or repair of the original sign. After the March 18, 2004, sale of the property and the post-hurricane erection of the rebuilt sign, Town & Country Realty continued to receive renewal billing from the Department for the original sign, along with several other signs owned by Town & Country Realty. Town & Country Realty, having sold the property on which the original sign was located and having no apparent interest in maintaining its other signs, did not pay the renewal bills. On January 31, 2005, the Department issued a Notice of Violation and Order to Show Cause Non-Payment (“NOV”) to Town & Country Realty. The NOV provided a grace period of 30 days within which the license and permits could be renewed, subject to a penalty. Town & Country Realty did not renew the license or permits. On March 7, 2005, the Department issued a Final Notice of Sign Removal, noting that Town & Country Realty had not made payment for renewal or request an administrative hearing to contest the NOV. As a result, Town & Country Realty was given the option of either petitioning for reinstatement of the license and permits, or removing the signs, including the sign bearing permit tag number BK459. Failure to exercise one of the options within 90 days was to result in the removal and disposal of the sign by the Department. On March 22, 2005, as a result of the continued requests for payment, Town & Country Realty submitted an Outdoor Advertising Permit Cancellation Certification form (“Cancellation Certification”) to the Department for permit tag number BK459. The Cancellation Certification was received by the Department on March 24, 2005. The Cancellation Certification was signed by Carl Fischer, president of the permit holder, Town & Country Realty. Mr. Fischer indicated that it was the permit holder’s intent “that the above-referenced Permit(s) be cancelled,” and that “all entities with a right to advertise on the referenced sign have been notified of the permit cancellation.” In the “Date Sign Removed” field of the form, Mr. Fisher wrote “see below.” In the bottom margin of the form, Mr. Fischer noted that the sign had been destroyed by one of the 2004 hurricanes, and that “new owner rebuilt sign and I removed BK459 tag and enclosed it.” The Cancellation Certification did not provide any information regarding the rebuilt sign or whether it was a sign that required a permit from the Department,2/ nor did it provide the name, address, or other identifying information regarding the “new owner.” It was not clear when Mr. Fischer removed permit tag number BK459, but it was nonetheless removed and returned to the Department with the Cancellation Certification. The Cancellation Certification was not intended by Mr. Fischer to affect Petitioner’s rights or interest in the rebuilt sign, but was a means of stopping renewal bills from being sent to Town & Country Realty. A Cancellation Certification may be conditioned upon issuance of a new sign permit, provided the Cancellation Certification is submitted along with an outdoor advertising permit application. The Cancellation Certification gave no indication that permit tag number BK459 was being conditionally canceled as a requirement for issuance of a new permit, and was not accompanied by an outdoor advertising permit application. On March 24, 2005, permit tag number BK459 was cancelled. From 2005 until June 2014, the rebuilt sign remained in place without inquiry from the Department, during which time Petitioner continued to lease and receive income from the sign. No transfer of or application for a sign permit for the rebuilt sign was filed, and no payment of annual fees was made. No explanation was provided as to why the March 7, 2005, Final Notice of Sign Removal was not enforced, or why the rebuilt sign, which has at all times been clearly visible from U.S. Highway 1, was allowed to remain in place for nearly a decade despite having no affixed permit tag. On or about May 28, 2014, Mr. Johnson, who was on patrol in the area, noticed that the advertising on the rebuilt sign had been changed. The change caught his attention, so he reviewed the Department’s outdoor advertising sign database to determine whether the sign was permitted. He confirmed that the rebuilt sign was not permitted. On June 5, 2014, Mr. Johnson affixed a “30-day green notice” to the rebuilt sign, which provided notice of the Department’s determination that the sign was illegal, and was to be removed within 30 days. Failure to remove the sign was to result in the removal of the sign by the Department. On June 9, 2014, the Department issued a Notice of Violation - Illegally Erected Sign (NOV) to Petitioner for the rebuilt sign. Petitioner did not submit a hearing request regarding the NOV. Rather, Petitioner called the telephone number that was listed on the NOV. He spoke with someone at the Department, though he could not remember who he spoke with. Petitioner was advised to file an application for the sign, a remedy that is described in the NOV. On December 1, 2014, Petitioner submitted Outdoor Advertising Permit Application Nos. 61203 and 61204 for the northward and southward faces of the Current Sign at milepost 18.535. Petitioner subsequently submitted additional information, including local government approval, in support of the application. On December 18, 2014, the Department issued a Notice of Denied Outdoor Advertising Permit Application for application Nos. 61203 and 61204 (“notice of denial”) to Petitioner. The bases for the notice of denial were that the property’s tax identification numbers submitted in various parts of the application did not match, thus constituting “incorrect information” in the application, and that the rebuilt sign is located on a designated scenic highway, thus prohibiting issuance of the permit. In the Pre-hearing Stipulation filed by the parties, the Department, though referencing “incorrect information” as a basis for the December 18, 2014, notice of denial, concluded its statement of position by stating that “[i]n sum, the Department properly denied [Petitioner’s application] as the sign is located on a scenic highway.” That focus on the scenic highway issue in the Pre-hearing Stipulation could, of itself, constitute a waiver and elimination of other issues, including that of incorrect information. See Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Broward Marine, Inc., 174 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). However, looking beyond the Pre-hearing Stipulation, the issue of incorrect information was not the subject of testimony at the final hearing, finds no substantial support in the documentary evidence, and made no appearance in the Department’s Proposed Recommended Order. The record in this proceeding does not support a finding that Petitioner provided “incorrect information” in his application, or that such “incorrect information” supports a denial of the application. On February 12, 2015, Petitioner filed a request for an informal administrative hearing with the Department to contest the notice of denial. The request for hearing included affidavits from Petitioner and Henry A. Fischer, a vice-president of Town & Country Realty, each of which provided that Town & Country Realty “submitted to the governmental authorities included but not limited to the Florida Department of Transportation notice of the transfer of the property and the sign permit to Mr. Daddano as well as his correct mailing address of 15 Lakeside Lane, N. Barrington, IL 60010.” It is not known whether the N. Barrington, Illinois, address was that of Mr. Fischer or that of Petitioner. Regardless, no such notice of transfer, or any other document bearing the referenced address, was introduced in evidence or discussed at the final hearing. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the March 22, 2005, Outdoor Advertising Permit Cancellation Certification, with the notation described in paragraph 30 above, was the only notice provided to the Department regarding the disposition of permit tag number BK459. By June 4, 2015, the advertising copy that caught Mr. Johnson’s attention had been removed and replaced with a “This Sign For Rent” covering. By no later than November 17, 2015, well after the Department issued the notice of denial, and without any other form of approval or authorization from the Department, Petitioner had the rebuilt sign “pivoted” in roughly its existing location, so that it is now parallel to U.S. Highway 1. As such, only the side of the sign facing U.S. Highway 1 is visible from the highway, making it a “one-way reader” as opposed to a two-sided sign. Nonetheless, unlike the original one-sided sign, which was perpendicular to the highway against a backdrop of vegetation, the pivoted rebuilt sign can be seen by traffic traveling in either direction on U.S. Highway 1.3/
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 denying Outdoor Advertising Permit Application Nos. 61203 and 61204. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 27th day of April, 2016.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent's sign which is the subject of this proceeding was erected on Bennett Road, approximately 280 feet north of the intersection of Bennett Road with State Road 50, in Orange County, Florida. This location is approximately 1.4 miles west of SR 436, as alleged in the violation notice. The subject sign is located on the west side of Bennett Road facing north and south which is parallel to State Road 50. State Road 50 is a federal-aid primary highway. Bennett Road 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 1984, the Respondent had applied for a permit to erect a sign along a non-controlled road within 660feet of a federal-aid primary highway, and had been advised by Department personnel that a state permit was not required (See Case No. 85- 3017T which was heard contemporaneously with the subject case). The sign which is the subject of this proceeding was erected without a permit based on the Respondent's knowledge of the Department's position that a permit was not required, as expressed to the Respondent previously in 1984. The subject sign is visible to traffic on State Road 50, although it is perpendicular to Bennett Road and parallel to State Road 50. There is another permitted sign owned by National Advertising Company located on the north side of State Road 50, east of the Bennett Road intersection, approximately 114 feet from the subject sign. The National sign faces east and west, not north and south, and it is not on Bennett Road. Another permitted sign owned by Peterson Outdoor Advertising is located on the north side of State Road 50, approximately 475 feet west of the Bennett Road intersection. This sign faces east and west, not north and south as the subject sign does, and it is not on Bennett Road as the subject sign is.
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 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 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 =================================================================
