The Issue Whether the outdoor advertising signs in question are in violation of the applicable statutes and regulations and whether their permits should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent applied to the Petitioner for outdoor advertising permits at a location on the west side of State Road 263, 674 feet north of U.S. Highway 90, with signs facing north and south. Prior to making application with the Petitioner, Mr. Mooshie contacted the Tallahassee Leon County Department and was advised that the site was located within county jurisdiction. Mr. Mooshie applied for and received a permit from Leon County whereby the county asserted jurisdiction over the area in question. The site in question is within the city limits of Tallahassee and was in the city limits of Tallahassee at the time Mr. Mooshie applied for the permit. The permit applications submitted by the Respondent indicated that the sign site was not inside the city limits. State Permit Tag Numbers BB 729-35 and BB 730-35 were issued on July 22, 1990 for the site in question. The Respondent applied to the City of Tallahassee for a city permit for the subject site on July 11, 1990 and was advised that a permit could not be issued because a city permit had been issued to Lamar Advertising for a location 600 feet north on the same street on June 21, 1990. The Petitioner issued an outdoor advertising permit to Lamar Advertising for the site for which the city had issued a building permit prior to the final hearing in this case. The City of Tallahassee sign ordinance requires 2,000 feet spacing between billboards on the same side of the street. No sign structure has been erected at the site in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that State Permit Tag Numbers BB 729-35 and BB 730-35 be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Esq. Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 John S. Mooshie Wakoa, Inc. Post Office Box 12335 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Thornton J. Williams, Esq. General Counsel 605 Suwannee Street 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact By Advertising Sign Permit dated March 4, 1985 (Exhibit 3), Clear Vu Media was authorized to locate a sign with both east and west facing boards on State Road 52, 2- 1/2 miles east of Plaza Drive (Little Road). The permit was issued by Linda K. Brown, outdoor advertising inspector for DOT. Prior to issuing the permit Brown visited the proposed site and approved the location as meeting the requirements for an outdoor advertising sign. Subsequent to the erection of the sign Brown inspected the sign and found the sign to be located on a site other than the approved site. The existing structure is located 890 feet from another existing and permitted sign. The approved site is located at least 1,000 feet from this existing sign and from any other permitted sign along State Road 52. State Road 52 is a federal-aid primary highway. A Notice of Hearing was sent to Clear Vu Media, Post Office Box 2038, New Port Richey, Florida 33552, by U.S. Mail and was not returned as undelivered.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Marilyn Bethel owns Tract B of Unit 3 in Indian River Estates in St. Lucie County, Florida [hereinafter referred to as the Property]. On or about May 14, 1988, Bethel entered into a lease agreement with Respondent. The agreement, which was signed by Bethel and Respondent's Secretary Treasurer, Richard Pozniak, provided as follows: The undersigned lessor, his [sic] heirs or assigns, in consideration of the annual sum of TWELVE HUNDRED (1,200) Dollars paid by AD-CON OUTDOOR ADV., INC., its heirs or assigns, hereafter known as Lessee, hereby grants to it or assigns the exclusive right to use and occupy the premises known as, [the Property] space for a south facing sign[,] for the purpose of constructing and maintaining advertising displays and devices, including necessary equipment for a period of Year to Year years from 6/1/88 19 . First option to lease both North and South facing locations will be granted to the Lessee by the Lessor for the above mentioned location at the termination date of the Lease drawn between the Lessor and National Outdoor Adv due to expire in [sic] April 1, 1989, for an additional 1,200. Total due will be $2,400. It is further agreed: In the event said property is to be improved by the erection of a permanent building, the agreement may be cancelled by giving sixty (60) days written notice to the Lessee prior to the commencement of construction. If the title passes from the present owner, this agreement may be cancelled by giving sixty (60) days written notice to the Lessee. In either case, the Lessee shall be refunded all unearned prepaid rental. The right is given to the Lessee to cancel this agreement by giving sixty (60) days written notice if the advertising value of the premises is diminished by any law or regulation, obstruction of view, or change of traffic. The Lessor agrees not to obstruct, nor to permit any other person to obstruct, the view of the advertising displays or devices constructed on said premises in any manner whatsoever. In the event this agreement is terminated before the end of its term (or the renewal thereof) the Lessor agrees to refund to the Lessee all unearned prepaid rental. It is understood that all display or necessary equipment placed on above property by Lessee is at all times its property and subject to its removal at any time. After the term (or renewal thereof) of this agreement, it will continue in force from year to year unless terminated by either Lessee or Lessor or[sic] written notice to the other, served not less than sixty (60) days before the beginning of such additional year. Lessor grants to lessee, or agents, the right to ingress or egress during the term of this contract to maintain sign structure(s). This agreement is subject to Lessee securing a building permit for said display. Payment is to be made upon securing building permit. The foregoing agreement was drafted by Respondent. Respondent prepared the agreement by adding the underscored language to a printed, form "Outdoor Advertising Structures and Display Lease" that it routinely utilizes in such transactions. On or about June 20, 1988, Respondent submitted an application for an outdoor advertising sign permit for the south facing sign referenced in the above-described lease agreement. Permit AY 242-35 was subsequently granted to Respondent by Petitioner. By letter dated January 9, 1989, from Respondent's attorney, Respondent informed Bethel that it sought to exercise its option "to lease both North and South facing locations," as provided in their agreement. By letter dated January 24, 1989, Bethel, through her attorney, gave "notification to [Respondent] pursuant to the Lease that it will be terminated on May 31, 1989." The letter was received by Respondent on January 25, 1989. On or about May 1, 1989, Bethel sent Petitioner a letter advising that Respondent would "not have a lease for the billboard [which is the subject of permit AY 242-35] after May 31, 1989." Based on the information provided by Bethel, Petitioner initiated action to revoke permit AY 242-35 on the ground that Respondent no longer had "the property owner's permission to maintain signs at the subject location."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, its hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's permit AY 242-35. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of November, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3807T The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioner: Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected. The Hearing Officer is of the view that the agreement is not vague and ambiguous regarding Bethel's right to terminate her agreement with Respondent in the manner prescribed by the agreement's termination clause. In any event, to the extent that there may an ambiguity in the agreement concerning this matter, any such ambiguity should be resolved in favor of Bethel's right to terminate the agreement inasmuch as the agreement was drafted by Respondent. See Finlayson v. Broward County, 471 So.2d 67, 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). COPIES FURNISHED: Rivers H. Buford, Jr., Esquire Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Garrison M. Dundas, Esquire Swann and Haddock, P.A. Southeast Bank Building 300 South Sixth Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Richard J. Pozniak Ad-Con Advertising Company Post Office Box 541 Fort Pierce, Florida 34954
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Empire Outdoor Advertising, Inc., is the owner of a sign located on the westbound or north side of Northwest 54th Street approximately 20 feet east of Northwest 12th Avenue, in Dade County, Florida. Northwest 54th Street is also designated as State Road 25A. The Respondent's sign is a structure or billboard designed to advertise or inform, and its copy is visible from the main traveled way of the adjacent roadway of State Road 25A or Northwest 54th Street. At the site where the Respondent's sign is located, State Road 25A or Northwest 54th street is a part of the federal-aid primary highway system, and this roadway is open to the public for vehicular traffic. The Respondent's sign is located within 660 feet from the nearest edge of the pavement of State Road 25A. The Respondent's sign is situated within 500 feet from another outdoor advertising structure on the same side of the highway. These two signs face in the same direction and are both visible to westbound traffic on the north side of State Road 25A or Northwest 54th Street. The Respondent's sign has affixed to it copy which advertises Imported Canadian Mist. This structure does not fall within any of the exceptions to the statutory licensing requirements set forth in Section 479.16, Florida Statutes, and it must have a state sign permit. The Respondent has not applied for an outdoor advertising permit from the Department, and no such permit has been issued by the Department for the subject sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter its Final Order finding the Respondent's sign which is the subject of this proceeding to be in violation of the applicable statutes and rules, and ordering its removal. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 25th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 L. Martin Reeder, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 2637 Palm Beach, Florida 33480
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner's timely filed a Petition challenging the voiding of an outdoor advertising permit and whether the Department properly denied a resulting application for issuance of a new permit for the subject outdoor advertising structure.
Findings Of Fact The Community Sign Service, Inc. (Community) received permits numbered 54510 and 54511 from the Department on February 8, 2006, authorizing erection of a two-sided billboard in Lanark Village along U.S. Highway 98 in Franklin County, Florida. That permit included a statement that a completed outdoor advertising sign must be erected within 270 days of issuance of the permit or else the permit would become void. The Petitioner, Community, erected a sign structure consisting of a "monopole" structure at the permitted location. It has two rectangular "wind frames" surrounded by a catwalk on top. The Petitioner, Mr. Franklin, intended attaching a vinyl wrap to the structure with the advertising copy or an "available for rent" message, but that had not been accomplished as of December 4, 2006. On December 4, 2006, the Department, through an inspection by a Department contractor, inspected the site and determined that the sign had not been completed because the face and message were not on it. Therefore, on December 14, 2006, the Department issued a notice advising the Petitioners that the permit was void, the sign illegal, and it needed to be removed because the completed outdoor advertising sign had not been erected at the site within 270 days of the date of permit issuance. The notice to the Petitioners notified them that they could elect to challenge the action by requesting an administrative proceeding within 30 days of the date of the notice, in accordance with the notice of appeal rights on the reverse side of the notice form. The reverse side of the form stated that any petition must be filed with the clerk of agency proceedings by 5:00 p.m. no later than 30 days after the Petitioners received the notice. Several other notices of violations for failure to post Department-issued "tags" on signs were issued to Mr. Franklin. The Department tags were required to be posted on signs within 30 days of their issuance, and on November 16, 2006, Mr. Franklin received two notices that outdoor advertising permits were void, for failure to display advertising copy on two sign structures in Gulf County, Florida. Mr. Franklin met with Ms. Holschuh of the Department in late 2006 or early 2007, to discuss the notices that he had received from the Department and to show her several photographs, taken on his digital camera, of several signs. One of the photographs he alleged showed the Franklin County sign with a "for rent" sign or message, with a phone number at the base of one of the wind frames on the sign structure. This is referred to in the industry as "the apron." The camera did not display the date of the photograph in the picture, but Mr. Franklin stated that he took the picture on December 20, 2006. Ms. Holschuh asked him to provide her with a copy of the photograph but he did not return with a copy because he could not get one to print from his camera with a date on it. Mr. Franklin was given until September 20, 2007, after the hearing, to present the photo as a late-filed exhibit, with the Department accorded an opportunity to submit a counter exhibit, but the photograph exhibit was never filed. In any event, the condition which resulted in the void notice was observed by the contractor inspector on December 4, 2006, and the notice of void permit was issued on December 14, 2006. After he was unable to resolve the void permit issue with the Department, Mr. Franklin submitted a new application under his own name, for a permit for the sign structure at issue, on February 15, 2007. He submitted it in his own name because Section 479.07(5)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that an entity whose permit has been voided may not be eligible for a new permit at the same location for 270 days after the date on which the permit became void. Therefore, Mr. Franklin submitted the application for a new permit in his own name so it would not be the same entity applying. The application for advertising permits for the same location in Franklin County was denied by the Department on the same day, with an explanation that U.S. 98 in Franklin County had recently been declared a "scenic byway" and under the law pertaining to that status, no new permits could be issued. On February 21, 2007, Mr. Franklin submitted a letter to the Department's clerk challenging the voiding of the original permit and stating "this sign had a phone number and for rent sign posted to the apron as there was no sign face to attach the sign to." An Amended Petition challenging both the voiding of the prior permit and the denial of the application for a new permit was submitted to the Department on April 9, 2007.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Department of Transportation denying the Petitioner's applications for state outdoor advertising permits, based on the scenic highway designation referenced hereinabove, and dismissing the challenge to the voiding of the permit as untimely filed and directing consequent removal of the subject sign in accordance with the provisions of Section 479.105, Florida Statutes (2006). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Leon Franklin 336 Mills Bayou Drive Milton, Florida 32583 Susan Schwartz, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James C. Myers Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Stephanie Kopelousos, Interim Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Alexis M. Yarbrough, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether DOT should void outdoor advertising permits Nos. AT402-35 and AT403-35?
Findings Of Fact On March 20, 1987, (T. 12) DOT issued advertising sign permits to respondent, Nos. AT 402-35 and AT 403-35, authorizing construction of a metal outdoor advertising sign "monopole" 43 feet high with sign boards facing north and south, less than a tenth of a mile south of Alternate U.S. Highway 90, a "federal aid primary road" (T. 11), immediately west of State Road 297 in Escambia County. DOT's Exhibit No. 1. In May of 1988, Outdoor Media, Inc., applied for a permit to construct an outdoor advertising sign at a site five or six hundred feet east of the intersection of State Road 297 and Alternate U.S. Highway 90. Because the site proposed by Outdoor Media, Inc., is visible from and lies within 660 feet of the main traveled way of Alternate U.S. Highway 90 and because it lies within 1,000 feet of the site on which DOT had authorized Salter to erect signs, DOT denied Outdoor Media, Inc.'s, application. When Philip N. Brown, who works in DOT's outdoor advertising section, reported that no sign had ever been built at the site for which Salter had obtained permits Nos. AT402-35 and AT403-35, DOT notified Salter of its intent to void and revoke the permits. DOT's Exhibit No. 2. Some time after June 19, 1988, more than 18 days after DOT sent Salter notice of its intent to void the sign permits, Salter erected a wooden sign on the site. On March 10, 1988, Salter had obtained a building permit from Escambia County for the metal monopole structure, but, because more than 180 days had elapsed without any call for inspection, Escambia County declared the building permit null and void on September 23, 1988.
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 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 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.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, National Advertising Company, is entitled to the issuance of a vegetation control permit for its south-facing advertising billboard located West of Interstate I-75, in Lee County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is the state agency charged with the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, which regulates outdoor advertising structures along the state highway system, including interstate highways. Construction of Interstate 75 in the relevant area of Lee County, Florida, was completed and accepted by the DOT on or about February 22, 1979. On March 10, 1980, the Florida Department of Transportation issued an outdoor advertising sign permit to Florida Outdoor for a billboard to be located adjacent to I-75, .25 miles north of the intersection of I-75 and State Road 82 in Lee County. The billboard was constructed and the billboard structure, together with the sign permit, was acquired by Petitioner in May of 1982. Petitioner holds a current valid sign permit, DOT sign permit number AB-118-10, for the above sign. Said sign is a non-conforming sign under the Rules of the DOT and cannot be moved or raised. Petitioner submitted a properly completed application for a vegetation control permit to the DOT on February 4, 1991. Petitioner's sign board does not have five hundred feet of exposure along the interstate highway within a one thousand foot window and is therefore a screened board under the provisions of the DOT's rules. Following review of the application by the District Roadway Maintenance Engineer, it was determined that the area covered by the vegetation control permit was within an area specifically preserved during the construction process which prohibits any pruning, trimming, or removal of trees, shrubs, or vegetation in that area. Based on that determination, the permit was denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A Final Order be entered finding that the vegetation control permit requested by National Advertising Company on I-75 (S.R. 93) in Lee County, Florida, should be GRANTED, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 14-13, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 30th December, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. National Advertising's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4 (in part) 5,6 (in part), 8,10. Rejected as irrelevant or immaterial: paragraph 4 (in part-coverage in Preliminary Statement), 6 (in part), 7,9,11. Rejected as a conclusion of law: paragraph 12,13. Department of Transportation's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance; Stipulation of Facts; paragraphs 1 (in part), 2 (in part). Rejected as conclusions of law: paragraphs 1 (in part), 2 (in part). Copies furnished: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Kreuter & Livingston, P.A. 200 East Robinson Street Suite 1150 Orlando, Florida Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
