The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's outdoor advertising sign on State Road 200, 5.37 miles east of U.S. Highway 17, should be removed because it does not have a permit for said sign.
Findings Of Fact Ronald L. Peacock, owner of Peacock Electric Company, had his employees erect a two-sided sign on State Road 200, 5.37 miles east of U.S. Highway 17. Mr. Peacock acknowledges that he did not have a permit for the sign and that he knew he needed a permit at the time he had the sign erected. He testified that he just hoped he would not get caught. State Road 200 is a federal aid primary road. After he was first notified that the sign was erected without a permit, Mr. Peacock filed an application for a permit. The application was rejected because it did not contain the necessary fees, the permission of the landowner, or the local building permit. Additionally, the location of the sign is 942 feet from an existing permitted sign. The sign is five feet from the right-of-way. Mr. Peacock removed the sign after this action was filed by DOT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and subject matter of these proceedings. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. As relevant to this case, Section 479.105, Florida Statute, states: Any sign which is located adjacent to the right-of-way of any highway on the State Highway System outside an incorporated area or adjacent to the right-of-way on any portion of the interstate or federal-aid primary highway system, which sign was erected, operated, or maintained without the permit required by S. 479.07(1) having been issued by the department, is declared to be a public nuisance and shall be removed as provided in this section. * * * (d) If, after a hearing, it is determined that a sign has been wrongfully or erroneously removed pursuant to this subsection, the department, at the sign owner's discretion, shall either pay just compensation to the owner of the sign or reerect the sign in kind at the expense of the department. In this case, the sign was erected without a permit and Mr. Peacock has correctly been denied a permit. The sign has been removed as required. The sign owner has not proven that the sign was erroneously removed. Hence, the sign cannot be reerected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order and therein order the removal of the sign in question and deny any request for reerection of the sign without a permit. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 16th day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Gardner Attorney at Law Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Ronald L. Peacock Peacock Electric Company Route 1, Box 137-D Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact The facts here involved are not in dispute. In 1966 Petitioner leased the property adjacent to Cypress Street in Tampa and erected a structure thereon on the 1-275 3.6 miles west of 1-4, containing signs facing both east and west. By application dated 20 October 1977 (Exhibits 1 and 2) Petitioner applied for permits for these signs. The applications were disapproved because of spacing. Likewise, on 20 October 1977, Petitioner submitted application for a permit for a sign on the 1-4 2.9 miles east of U.S. 41 with a copy of the lease dated 1967. This sign is located in Tampa and the application was also disapproved because of spacing. Both of these locations are zoned commercial and are within the corporate limits of Tampa, Florida. The structure on which the signs shown on Exhibits 1 and 2 were erected was built in 1968 and the sign involved in Exhibit 3 was built in 1967. The signs for which a permit was requested in Exhibits 1 and 2 is located 325 feet north of a permitted structure owned by Tampa Outdoor Advertising, Inc. on the same side of the street and facing in the same direction. The sign for which a permit was requested in Exhibit 3 is 275 feet west of a permitted sign facing the same direction and on the same side of the street which is owned by Foster and Kleiser. No appeal was taken from these disapprovals, but by applications dated June 19, 1979, Petitioner in Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 reapplied for permits for the same signs that had been disapproved in 1977. These applications were also disapproved because of spacing. The I-4 and the I-275 are part of the Interstate Highway system.
Findings Of Fact In May, 1982, Respondent entered into a 10 year lease with the owner of certain real estate on the East side of I-95, a federal highway now and at the time in issue, in Palm Beach County, Florida, for the erection of an advertising signboard. The site in question was located 850 feet more or less north of the intersection of I-95 with State Road 710. In order to get both state and county permits for this sign, Respondent had a survey made of the area to determine if the site of the proposed sign was more that 1,000 feet from the closest sign on the same side of the highway so as to conform to the requirements of the pertinent statute and DOT rules. This survey, completed in June, 1982, indicated that the proposed site for Respondent's sign was 1040 feet from the closest billboard on the same side of the highway. This survey, however, was not done in such a manner as to accurately indicate the distance in question because the base lines for measurement were not perpendicular to the edge of the pavement. The sign was not erected immediately, however, and to be sure that the siting was accurate, Respondent again, in July, 1983, had another survey performed by a different surveyor which reflected that the distance between the Respondent's sign and that next north of it was in excess of 1000 feet. The Respondent was issued two permits for the sign in question and has received annual renewals of those permits in 1984, 1985, and 1986. The permits in question are AH 297-12 and AH 298-12. At no time has Petitioner indicated any intention to revoke either of these permits. The billboard next north of the sign in issue here was erected by Respondent on property leased in May, 1977. This earlier dual-sided sign was issued permits number 2721 and 2722. Apparently, the tags for these permits were lost as on April 24, 1980, DOT issued new tag numbers to Respondent, AC 133-12 for 2721, and AC 134-12 for 2722. Later on, in May, 1984, Mr. Fred J. Harper, District Administrator for Petitioner, having reason to believe the two signs were too close, measured the distance between the southern and northern signs involved here. He took three separate measurements; one with an electronic odometer, one with a walking wheel belonging to DOT, and the third with a walking wheel belonging to Respondent's representative. In each of the three measurements, Mr. Harper attempted to measure from a baseline to endline each of which was perpendicular running from the post to the edge of the pavement. Though his perpendiculars were not measured by instruments, he is satisfied from his eight years of experience in his current position that his eye is accurate enough to minimize error. The three measurements made along the edge of the roadway, reflected distances of 884, 888, and 886 feet, respectively. To confirm these measurements, Mr. Harper contacted the District Surveyor, Mr. McCarthy, and requested a survey be done to establish the distance. Though he did not personally go to the site with the surveyor, he did point it out on maps and aerial surveys of the area. The survey by DOT surveyors was done by or under the supervision of Mr. McCarthy. The measurements were based on a starting point at the center line of the I-95 right of way down a line perpendicular to each pole with a 90 degree turn at the pole toward the other pole. The distance between the two poles, determined by an electronic distance measuring device, was no more than 894.4 feet. The Department notified Respondent of this in writing. This distance was not measured along the edge of the pavement, as called for in Rule 14-10.06(1)(b)4b, Florida Administrative Code, but, according to Mr. McCarthy, even if it had been, the distance in this case would have been only about 20 feet more than the 894.4 feet measured due to the slight curve in the road. In any case, the total distance would have remained under 1,000 feet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED That: Petitioner, Department of Transportation enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's sign permits AH 297-12 and AH 298-12, and directing the signs be removed. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of December, 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 11th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-2248T The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Covered in Findings of Fact 1, 3, 4 and 7. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 2 and 7. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Incorporated in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 7. Paragraph 1 - approved. Paragraph 2 - approved. Paragraph 3 - approved. Approved. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as conjecture after the fact. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151
The Issue Did the Department of Transportation properly issue Notice of Violation No. 10B LJM 1997 197 to Respondent pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Deron's owns the property located at 4212 Hammond Drive (State Road 542) which is on the east side of Hammond Drive. Deron's business establishment is located at 4212 Hammond Drive. Deron's primary business activities such as screen printing, embroidery, and sales are conducted at 4212 Hammond Drive. Eastwood Self-Storage (Eastwood) is located at 4207 Hammond Drive, which is on the west side of Hammond Drive. Eastwood is in the business of leasing storage spaces to the public for self-storage. Deron's currently leases three self-storage spaces from Eastwood where Deron's primarily stores its excess inventory and supplies. Deron's does not have a business office located at 4207 Hammond Drive and does not conduct any of its business activities such as screen printing, embroidery, and sales at the self-storage units located at 4207 Hammond Drive. The sign subject to this proceeding (sign) is located at 4207 Hammond Drive on property owned by Eastwood. Deron's paid Eastwood to erect the subject sign which sits on top of an on-premise sign owned by Eastwood. Deron's does not pay any rent for the use of the sign to Eastwood or anyone else. The sign advertises Deron's business and the business activities performed by Deron's at its establishment located at 4212 Hammond Drive. Hammond Drive separates the property owned by Eastwood where the sign is located (4207 Hammond Drive) from the property owned by Deron's at 4212 Hammond Drive upon which Deron's business establishment is located. The sign is located within 660 feet of, and is visible to, State Road 542, a jurisdictional highway for purposes of enforcing outdoor advertising. Because of the location of the subject sign (within a 1000 feet of another permitted sign on the same side of Hammond Drive), it does not meet the permitting requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order finding the subject sign to be in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes; and it is further recommended that Deron's be required to remove the sign from its location. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Barry, Secretary ATTN: James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 John G. Wood, Jr., Esquire 3601 Cypress Gardens Road Suite A Winter Haven, Florida 33884
The Issue Whether the mural on the east exterior wall of the City Inn Hotel is an illegal sign subject to removal pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, including the parties' factual stipulations, the following findings of fact are made: Pursuant to federal law (specifically, 23 U.S.C. § 131(b) of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965), a state's share of federal-aid highway funds may be reduced by ten percent if the state has failed to maintain "effective control" of outdoor advertising "along the Interstate System and the primary system." What constitutes "effective control," as that term is used in 23 U.S.C. § 131(b), is explained as follows in 23 U.S.C. § 131(c): Effective control means that such signs, displays, or devices after January 1, 1968, if located within six hundred and sixty feet of the right-of-way and, on or after July 1, 1975, or after the expiration of the next regular session of the State legislature, whichever is later, if located beyond six hundred and sixty feet of the right-of-way, located outside of urban areas, visible from the main traveled way of the system, and erected with the purpose of their message being read from such main traveled way, shall, pursuant to this section, be limited to (1) directional and official signs and notices, which signs and notices shall include, but not be limited to, signs and notices pertaining to natural wonders, scenic and historical attractions, which are required or authorized by law, which shall conform to national standards hereby authorized to be promulgated by the Secretary hereunder, which standards shall contain provisions concerning lighting, size, number, and spacing of signs, and such other requirements as may be appropriate to implement this section, (2) signs, displays, and devices advertising the sale or lease of property upon which they are located, signs, displays, and devices including those which may be changed at reasonable intervals by electronic process or by remote control, advertising activities conducted on the property on which they are located, signs lawfully in existence on October 22, 1965, determined by the State, subject to the approval of the Secretary, to be landmark signs, including signs on farm structures or natural surfaces, of historic or artistic significance the preservation of which would be consistent with the purposes of this section, and (5) signs, displays, and devices advertising the distribution by nonprofit organizations of free coffee to individuals traveling on the Interstate System or the primary system. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "free coffee" shall include coffee for which a donation may be made, but is not required. An exception to the restrictions imposed on outdoor advertising by 23 U.S.C. § 131(c) is found in 23 U.S.C. § 131(d), which allows the placement of signs in commercial and industrial areas "consistent with customary use," as "determined by agreement between the several States and the Secretary [of the federal Department of Transportation]." Florida is a signatory to such an agreement. The agreement was entered into on January 27, 1972, by the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, acting on behalf of the federal Department of Transportation, and the Governor of the State of Florida, acting on behalf of the State (1972 Agreement). Section II. of the 1972 Agreement is entitled, "Scope of Agreement," and it reads as follows: This agreement shall apply to the following areas: All zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the nearest edge of the right- of-way of all portions of the Interstate and Federal-aid Primary Systems within the State of Florida in which outdoor advertising signs may be visible from the main-traveled way of either or both of said systems. Section III. of the 1972 Agreement is entitled, "State Control," and it reads, in pertinent part, as follows: The State hereby agrees that, in all areas within the scope of this agreement, the State shall effectively control, or cause to be controlled, the erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs, displays, and devices erected subsequent to the effective date of this agreement, other than those advertising signs permitted under the terms and provisions of Florida Statutes 479.16 as of the date of this agreement, in accordance with the following criteria: In zoned commercial and industrial areas, the State may notify the Administrator that there has been established within such areas regulations which are enforced with respect to the size, lighting, and spacing of outdoor advertising signs consistent with the intent of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and with customary use. In such areas, the size, lighting, and spacing requirements set forth below shall not apply. In all other zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas, the criteria set forth below shall apply: SIZE OF SIGNS The maximum area for any one sign shall be twelve hundred (1,200) square feet with a maximum height of thirty (30) feet and maximum length of sixty (60) feet, inclusive of any border and trim but excluding the base or apron, supports, and other structural members. The area shall be measured by the smallest square, rectangle, triangle, circle, or combination thereof which will encompass the entire sign. The maximum size limitations shall apply to each side of a sign structure; and signs may be placed back-to-back, side-by-side, or in V-type construction with not more than two displays to each facing, and such sign structure shall be considered as one sign. SPACING OF SIGNS Interstate and Federal-aid Primary Highways. Signs may not be located in such a manner as to obscure, or otherwise physically interfere with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, signal, or device, obstruct or physically interfere with the deriver's view of approaching, merging, or intersecting traffic. Interstate Highway. a. No two structures shall be spaced less than one thousand (1,000) feet apart on the same side of the highway facing the same direction. * * * Federal-aid Primary Highways. No two structures shall be spaced less than five hundred (500) feet apart on the same side of the highway facing the same direction. Explanatory Notes. Official and "on premise" signs, as defined in Section 131(c) of Title 23, United States Code, and structures that are not lawfully maintained shall not be counted nor shall measurements be made from them for purposes of determining compliance with spacing requirements. The minimum distance between structures shall be measured along the nearest edge of the pavement between points directly opposite the signs along each side of the highway and shall apply only to structures located on the same side of the highway. LIGHTING Signs may be illuminated subject to the following restrictions: Signs which contain, include, or are illuminated by any flashing, intermittent, or moving light or lights are prohibited, except those giving public service information such as time, date, temperature, weather, or similar information. Signs which are not effectively shielded as to prevent beams or rays of light from being directed at any portion of the traveled ways of the Interstate or Federal- aid Primary Highway and which are of such intensity or brilliance as to cause glare or to imp[air] the vision of the driver of any motor vehicle, or which otherwise interfere with any driver's operation of a motor vehicle are prohibited. No sign shall be so illuminated that it interferes with the effectiveness of, or obscures an official traffic sign, device, or signal. All such lighting shall be subject to any other provisions relating to lighting of signs presently applicable to all highways under the jurisdiction of the State. At any time that a bona fide county or local zoning authority adopts regulations which include the size, lighting, and spacing of outdoor adverting, the State may so certify to the Administrator and control of outdoor advertising in the commercial or industrial zones within the geographical jurisdiction of said authority will transfer to subsection A of this section. * * * Section IV. of the 1972 Agreement is entitled, "Interpretations," and it reads as follows: The provisions contained herein shall constitute the standards for effective control of signs, displays, and devices within the scope of this agreement. In the event the provisions of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 are amended by subsequent action of Congress or the State legislation is amended, the parties reserve the right to renegotiate this agreement or to modify it to conform to any amendment. The 1972 Agreement has not been modified, pursuant to the provisions of Section IV., at any time subsequent to its execution in 1972. The Florida Legislature has delegated to the Department the responsibility of administering and enforcing the 1972 Agreement, as well as Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, which regulates "outdoor advertising." As the Department's Outdoor Advertising Administrator, Lynn Holschuh is responsible for overseeing the Department's discharge of this responsibility. She has delegated to the Regional Inspectors under her charge (including Mark Johnson, the lone Regional Inspector whose territory includes Miami-Dade County) the authority to post notices of violations on all illegal signs, without restriction. Among the provisions in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, is Section 479.156, Florida Statutes, which was originally effective July 1, 2007, and provides that, "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a municipality or county may permit and regulate wall murals within areas designated by such government," provided it does so within the parameters prescribed by the statute. The City of Miami has an ordinance (Miami Ordinance) permitting a limited number of wall murals in certain geographic areas of the city (wall mural districts3) that meet specified size, lighting, and spacing requirements. Among the Miami Ordinance's "Whereas" clauses is the following: WHEREAS, it is determined that the prominent display of large outdoor advertisements in the commercial and industrial Urban Core areas of Miami, as defined by Miami-Dade County, was a predominant and customary use up to and including 1972, and that permitting wall murals as designated in this ordinance is consistent with such customary use and the intent of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Sometime after May 1, 2009, the City of Miami sent to the Department a written request that it be "certified for local control over wall murals" pursuant to Section III. of the 1972 Agreement. The request read as follows: Request from the City of Miami to the Florida Department of Transportation to be certified for local control over wall murals pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 131, 23 C.F.R. § 706, Federal policy, the Federal-State Agreement dated January 27, 1972, § 479.156, Florida Statutes, and Fla. [] Admin. [Code] [R.] 14-10.025.[4] The City of Miami has passed Ordinance No. 12983 creating Sections 62-601 through 62- 618 of the Code of the City of Miami, on May 10, 2008, permitting and regulating wall murals. An amendment to that ordinance was subsequently adopted, which confirms that wall murals were a customary use as of 1972 and thereafter. Copies of the ordinance and amendment are enclosed. This ordinance was adopted with the intent to permit art or graphics on buildings and existing walls in certain commercial and industrial areas "in order to aesthetically enhance otherwise blank walls and unoccupied buildings." The funds from permitting these activities is to be utilized "to ensure quality of life and prevention of visual clutter or blight." It is estimated that nearly $2 million dollars of new local revenue is being generated from the permitting process. In these difficult economic times, this revenue is even more vital and the City is appreciative of both the State of Florida's and the Federal government's mutual assistance in helping create this stimulus. The ordinance is consistent with the intent of the Highway Beautification Act, the 1972 Federal-State agreement, and with federal regulations, federal policy, as well as with § 479.156, F.S. and Fla. Admin. [Code] R. 14-10.025. The ordinance and this submission are also consistent with the amendment to § 479.156, F.S., passed on May 1, 2009 by the Legislature in HB 1021. The City of Miami's request for certification is still pending. The Department is "awaiting [supporting] documentation from the City of Miami," which it has yet to receive. When it receives such documentation, it will refer the matter "for [the Federal Highway Administration's] determination." The Department has several "open cases" (the oldest dating back to 2006) each involving one or more allegedly illegal wall murals located in a wall mural district created by the Miami Ordinance.5 The Department has decided not to refer these "open cases" to DOAH for hearing, nor to take any other action with respect to these cases (including removal of the wall murals in question), until after a determination is made by the Federal Highway Administration as to whether the Miami Ordinance "effectively controls" outdoor advertising in the wall mural districts described in the ordinance in a manner "consistent with the intent of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and with customary use," as required by the 1972 Agreement. The City Inn Hotel (Hotel) is located at 660 Northwest 81st Street in Miami. It is not within any of the wall mural districts created by the Miami Ordinance. There presently is no local government ordinance comparable to the Miami Ordinance permitting wall murals in the area in which the Hotel is located, although Petitioner is engaged in efforts to convince the Miami-Dade County Commission that it should pass such an ordinance. Petitioner has owned the Hotel since July 2000. The Hotel is a revenue producing property. Petitioner rents out space inside the Hotel (hotel rooms, apartments, offices, and facilities for banquets and worship services); on the roof of the Hotel (for the placement of cellular towers); and on the exterior walls of the Hotel (for the display of wall murals).6 There have been "wall murals on the [exterior of the] building since [Petitioner] bought the property." At no time has Petitioner ever requested or obtained from the Department a sign permit for any of these murals. By issuance of Amended Notice of Violation-Illegally Erected Sign Number 1005005La (Amended Notice Number 1005005La) on June 23, 2006, the Department notified Petitioner that murals on the north, south, and east exterior walls of the Hotel were "in violation of Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, which requires a permit for all outdoor advertising signs not exempted by Section 479.16, Florida Statutes," and that these murals had to be "removed [by Petitioner] within thirty days" or else they would be "removed and disposed of by the Department without further notice" at Petitioner's expense. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing, and the Department forwarded the matter to DOAH for the assignment of an administrative law judge. The case was docketed as DOAH Case No. 06-3683. The final hearing in DOAH Case No. 06-3683 was held on June 5, 2007, before Administrative Law Judge Patricia M. Hart. Judge Hart issued her Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 06-3683 on September 28, 2007. Judge Hart's Recommended Order contained the following Findings of Fact: The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating outdoor advertising and for issuing permits for signs located along interstate and federal aid primary highways pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-10. See 479.02, Fla. Stat. Judah Burstyn is the president of Malibu Lodging LLC, which owns the City Inn Hotel, a 200-room hotel located at 660 Northwest 81st Street, Miami, Florida. Mr. Burstyn describes the business of Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel as a mixed-used real estate project. Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel rents hotel rooms and apartments in the City Inn Hotel property; it rents rooftop space on top of the City Inn Hotel to cellular telephone companies; it owns a used car lot located at 8028 Northwest 6th Court, Miami, Florida, adjacent to the hotel property; it rents meeting space in the hotel to a church; it rents the hotel banquet room and parking lot for special events; it rents office space and storage space in the City Inn Hotel; and it rents the use of portions of the City Inn Hotel property to tenants and the public for special events. In Plain Sight Media, a Nevada corporation, is principally engaged in the business of advertising and marketing its clients' products. In Plain Sight Media is a full-service media company that, among other things, designs, prints, installs, and removes outdoor advertising for its clients. The outdoor advertising primarily consists of images printed on large sheets of self- adhesive vinyl that are affixed to the exterior walls of buildings. In Plain Sight Media also designs and distributes promotional materials for its clients and assists its clients in direct sales of the clients' products. It does not, however, engage in actual direct sales of its clients' products. Pursuant to a lease executed March 1, 2007, by Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel and In Plain Sight Media, In Plain Sight Media leases office and other space in the City Inn Hotel property from Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel for rent totaling $21,750.00 per month. The lease provides that In Plain Sight Media has the right to "place advertising signage on the [City Inn Hotel] premises at [In Plain Sight Media's] discretion" and that In Plain Sight Media "shall use the Property as a media, marketing and advertising company for products having to do with Volkswagen, Vitamin Water and other clients represented by [In Plain Sight Media], whose clients['] promotional products and services are available on the [Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel] premises." In Plain Sight Media employs an individual who is in the office located in the City Inn Hotel from time to time, on an as-needed basis. She is responsible for answering the telephone, responding to inquiries from the public about the products of In Plain Sight Media's clients, organizing special promotional events, and performing general office work. Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel and In Plain Sight Media also executed a Lease Agreement for Wallspace at or about the end of January 2007, in which In Plain Sight Media agreed to pay Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel the greater of $21,750.00 per month or 50 percent of In Plain Sight Media's monthly ad revenue for the right to install and maintain wall signage advertisements or displays on each of the north and south exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel property at 600 [sic] Northwest 81st Street in Miami, Florida, for a minimum total monthly rent of $43,500.00. According to the testimony of Mr. Burstyn and of Marc Caldera, President of In Plain Sight Media, the March 1, 2007, lease covering office, storage space, and the use of other space in the City Inn Hotel and the adjacent parking lot and used car lot operated to void the Lease Agreement for Wallspace. On June 23, 2006, when the Amended Notice of Violation-Illegally Erected Sign was issued, large wall murals were attached to the north, east, and south exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel property advertising Heineken beer, Krieger watches, and a "Read to Achieve" program promoted by the Miami Heat basketball team. At the time of the final hearing in this case, these wall murals had been replaced with two larger wall murals on the north and south exterior walls, each approximately 60 feet wide and 65 feet high.[7] One wall mural featured a picture of a Volkswagen automobile with the slogan, "Woe isn't you. Dare to be happy," located on the south exterior wall of the City Inn Hotel, and the other featured a picture of a bottle of Vitamin Water and Shaquille O'Neal with the slogan "diesel power it works . . . for shaq," on the north exterior wall. Both of the banners were created, installed, and maintained by In Plain Sight Media. Guests at the City Inn Hotel sometimes purchase an automobile from the used car lot located adjacent to the City Inn Hotel and owned by Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel. Volkswagen automobiles are, from time to time, available for rent or for sale on this car lot. In Plain Sight Media sells Vitamin Water from a vending machine inside the City Inn Hotel property, and Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel receives a percentage of the revenue from the vending machine sales. If anyone asks about Vitamin Water at the In Plain Sight Media office in the City Inn Hotel, during the time the office is staffed, information about the product and promotional material is available. The wall murals installed on the north and south exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel property have generated inquiries to In Plain Sight Media from persons interested in its advertising and/or marketing services, and Mr. Burstyn believes that the wall murals have increased foot traffic in the City Inn Hotel. Both of the wall murals installed on the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel are visible from Interstate 95 and are located within 660 feet of the right-of-way for that federal highway. Neither In Plain Sight Media nor Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel has applied to the Department for, or obtained, outdoor advertising permits for these wall murals. The wall murals on the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel property are signs that advertise Volkswagen automobiles and Vitamin Water. As such, they cannot be displayed without an outdoor advertising permit. The wall murals do not advertise In Plain Sight Media or the City Inn Hotel, nor do they identify any merchandise or service offered as part of the principal business activity of either In Plain Sight Media or the City Inn Hotel. There is currently no agreement explicitly giving Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel the right to receive rental income attributed to outdoor advertising attached to the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel. The March 1, 2007, lease gives In Plain Sight Media the right to "place advertising signage" on the City Inn Hotel property, and it is reasonable to infer that a portion of the $21,750.00 per month rent paid to Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel by In Plain Sight Media includes rent for the use of the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel for advertising signage. This inference is supported by the terms of the lease executed in January 2007, which provided for In Plain Sight Media to pay Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel a minimum of $43,500.00 in rent for nothing more than the right to affix advertising wall murals on the exterior surfaces of the north and south walls of the City Inn Hotel. Wall murals have been attached to the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel since at least the early 1990's. Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel elicited evidence from the Department's witnesses relating to the withdrawal of a notice of violation for an illegal, unpermitted wall mural advertising "Continuum II." The notice of violation was withdrawn by the Department because it determined that the sign advertised a project that was to be developed on the site where the wall mural was displayed. When the "Continuum II" wall mural was replaced with a wall mural advertising Fiji water, a notice of violation was issued for that unpermitted sign. In her Recommended Order, Jude Hart made the following Conclusions of Law, among others: 24. Based on the findings of fact herein, the Department has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the wall murals attached to the north and south exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel are signs that are visible from and within 660 feet of a federal interstate highway and that the signs were erected and are maintained without a permit. * * * Based on the findings of fact herein, Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel has failed to carry its burden of proving that the wall murals advertising Volkswagen automobiles and Vitamin Water fall within the exemption set forth in Section 479.16(1), Florida Statutes. The principal business activity of In Plain Sight Media is marketing and promotion, including the design, erection, and maintenance of wall murals, and the principal business activity of Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel is an income-producing, mixed-use real estate venture. Volkswagen automobiles and Vitamin Water are neither principal nor accessory products or services "sold, produced, manufactured, or furnished" on the premises of the City Inn Hotel but are, at best, products incidental to the principal business activity of these companies. The fact[] that, from time to time, Volkswagen automobiles are available for sale or rent on the used car lot owned by Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel; that Vitamin Water is sold from a vending machine in the City Inn Hotel; and that the wall murals have generated interest in the advertising services provided by In Plain Sight Media and have increased the foot-traffic in the City Inn Hotel are not sufficient to establish that these wall murals advertise products or services that are the principal business activity of Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel or In Plain Sight Media. Furthermore, based on the findings of fact herein, it is reasonable to infer that part of the rental income Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel receives from In Plain Sight Media is for the right to use the hotel's exterior walls to display wall murals, so the wall murals [displayed by] Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel [are] not entitled to the exemption in Section 479.16(1), Florida Statutes. Finally, based on the findings of fact herein, Malibu Lodging Investments/City Inn Hotel has failed to prove that the wall murals advertising Volkswagen automobiles and Vitamin Water are conforming or nonconforming signs for which a permit may be issued pursuant to Section 479.105(1)(e), Florida Statutes. There was no showing that wall murals have been continuously maintained on the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel for the past seven years. The wall murals must, therefore, be removed. "Based on [her] Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law," Judge Hart recommended that the Department "issue a final order finding that the wall murals attached to the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel property violate[d] Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, and ordering that the wall murals be removed." In her Recommended Order, Judge Hart did not address the issue of whether the wall mural that had been attached to the east exterior wall of the Hotel, but had been removed prior to the final hearing, had been illegally erected and maintained, as had been alleged in Amended Notice Number 1005005La. Neither did she discuss the issue of whether the Department was guilty of engaging in selective enforcement. In the Final Order that it issued on December 21, 2007, the Department adopted Judge Hart's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and ordered the following, "[b]ased upon [these] Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law": ORDERED that Malibu Lodging Investments, LLC, d/b/a City Inn Hotel, shall remove the wall murals attached to the exterior walls of the City Inn Hotel property identified in the Department of Transportation's Notice of Violation-Illegally Erected Sign and Amended Notice of Violation-Illegally Erected Sign, Notice No. 100505La [sic], within 30 days of this final order. It is further ORDERED that should Malibu Lodging Investments, LLC, d/b/a City Inn Hotel fail to remove the murals, the Department of Transportation, or its contractor, will remove the murals without further notice and the cost of removal is hereby assessed against Malibu Lodging Investments, LLC, d/b/a City Inn Hotel, pursuant to Section 479.07(8)(d), Florida Statutes.[8] Petitioner currently has a lease agreement with Anheuser-Busch (Lease Agreement), pursuant to which it receives rental income for displaying murals advertising Anheuser-Busch products on the exterior of the Hotel.9 This is a critical revenue source for Petitioner. According to Petitioner's President, Judah Burstyn, without the wall mural revenue it receives, Petitioner would have to close the Hotel and file for bankruptcy. As part of the Lease Agreement, Anheuser-Busch has "occupie[d] space in the [Hotel]." Initially, the space it occupied was used just for "storage."10 Subsequently, it set up a "satellite [office] location" at the Hotel. The record is devoid of any persuasive competent substantial evidence that any Anheuser-Busch product, including Bud Light, Landshark Lager, or Beck's Beer, is now, or was at any time material to the instant case, sold, produced, manufactured, or furnished on the premises of the Hotel. At the time of the issuance of Notice Number T144MB, a mural advertising Bud Light covered the east exterior wall of the Hotel. This mural was replaced (on or before April 22, 2009) by a mural advertising Landshark Lager, which, in turn, was taken down (on June 17, 2009) and replaced (on or about June 24, 2009) by the mural now covering the east exterior wall. This mural advertises Beck's Beer. Like its predecessors, it is unpermitted, is within 660 feet of the edge of the right-of-way of I-95, and can be seen without visual aid by motorists of normal visual acuity traveling on I-95. The Department has not carried out the threat it made in Notice Number T144MB that, if the mural on the east exterior wall of the Hotel was not removed by Petitioner within 30 days of August 20, 2008, the mural would "be removed and disposed of by the Department without further notice" and "all costs associated with the removal [would] be assessed against the sign owner." More than a full year has passed since the issuance of Notice Number T144MB and an unpermitted mural (albeit one advertising a different Anheuser-Busch product) still covers the east exterior wall of the Hotel.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order finding that the Mural on the east exterior wall of the City Inn Hotel is an illegal sign subject to removal pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 25th day of August, 2009.
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a permit for an outdoor advertising sign should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Poz Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (Poz), filed an application dated June 19, 1996, with the Department of Transportation (Department) for an outdoor advertising sign permit. The application stated that the sign was to be located at I-95 approximately 2500 feet north of Midway Road in St. Lucie County, Florida. Additionally the application provided that the sign would not be located within city limits. The Department issued a Notice of Denied Application to Poz on July 16, 1996, stating the application was not approved because the “site is within 500 feet of a restricted interchange or intersection at grade," citing Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code. The Department uniformly interprets Rule 14- 10.006(1)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code. In the mid-80’s, the Department's central office sent out a diagram and instruction memo to all district staff explaining the measurement and distance requirements in Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)5. Based on the methodology used by the Department for measuring compliance with Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)5, the site of the sign proposed by Poz is within 500 feet of a restricted interchange. The area where I-95 crosses or intersects with Midway Road is called an interchange. Petitioner claims that the Department has approved other signs which are within 500 feet of a restricted interchange, namely, signs with permit numbers BM 097 and BM 096, located at the east side of I-95 and State Road 514; signs with permit numbers BM 819 and BM 820 located at the west side of I-95 and State Road 516; and signs with permit numbers BM 825 and BM 826 located at the west side of I-95 and State Road 514. The signs with permit numbers BM 096 and BM 097 are located within the city limits of Palm Bay according to the approved applications for those signs. According to the information contained in the Department’s computerized outdoor advertising location information, the signs with permit numbers BM 825 AND BM 826 are located within city limits. According to the information contained in the Department’s computerized outdoor advertising location information, the signs with permit numbers BM 819 and BM 820, are located within city limits. Petitioner also claims that the sign located at the interchange of I-95 and State Road 60 was within 500 feet of a restricted interchange. This sign is located in an unincorporated area of Indian River County. A sign was erected in this location in 1973 and was replaced with another sign at the same location in 1991. The county building permit for the restructured sign was issued conditioned upon the applicant receiving approval from the “State of Florida Right of Way Administration.” No evidence was presented to show that such approval was sought from or given by the Department. No evidence was presented to establish that the Department was aware that the sign had been restructured. Richard Pozniak, the husband of one of the owners of Poz, testified that a former sign inspector for the Department, Vanna Kinchen, had showed him how to measure for proposed sign sites. Ms. Kinchen rode out with Mr. Pozniak to a location about five miles from the interchange at issue and taught Mr. Pozniak how to measure from the interchange. Ms. Kinchen was not involved with the site at issue and was no longer a sign inspector at the time that Poz made the application for a permit of the site at issue. All interchanges are not constructed alike. Richard Pozniak and his wife, Barbara, measured the site which is at issue. Mr. Pozniak computed the distance from the interchange to the site by measuring 500 feet from the safety zone or gore area on I-95. The gore area is located on the inside of an entrance or exit ramp rather than along the outside of the widening of the pavement. In determining whether the site is within 500 feet of the interchange, the Department measures 500 feet beyond the widening of the entrance ramp onto I-95. The site proposed by Poz was located in the area before the widening of the ramp ends. A sign cannot be placed in the area. The logo program is a federally funded program. The requirements for the issuance of an outdoor advertising permit is different from the requirements for a business to display its logo in the logo program. In the logo program, the business is limited to displaying its logo on a Department sign structure located on the interstate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner, Poz Outdoor Advertising, Inc.’s application for a permit for an outdoor sign at I-95 and Midway Road in St. Lucie County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of May, 1997. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Pennington, Culpepper, Moore, Wilkinson Dunbar & Dunlap, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 34399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Attn: Diedre Grubbs, M.S. 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Department of Transportation properly issued a Notice of Violation for an illegally erected sign to Lamar of Tallahassee and whether the Petitioner's applications for a sign maintained at the corner of SR366/West Pensacola Street and Ocala Road, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, should be granted as a non-conforming sign or because the Department did not act on either the 2005 or 2007 application for the same sign in a timely manner.
Findings Of Fact Under Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, the Department is the state agency responsible for regulating outdoor advertising signs located within 660 feet of the state highway system, interstate, or federal-aid primary system. Lamar owns and operates outdoor advertising signs in the State of Florida. On March 15, 2005, Lamar applied for a permit from the Department to erect the subject sign. The permit was denied because it was within 1,000 feet of another permitted sign owned by Lamar that is located on SR366/West Pensacola Street. The review process for Lamar’s application for a sign permit involved a two-step process. Initially, Mr. Strickland, the State Outdoor Advertising Administrator, reviewed Lamar’s application. He determined that the sign was within 1,000 feet of another permitted structure. On April 12, 2007, he preliminarily denied Petitioner’s application, prepared the Notice of Denied Application reflecting a denial issuance date of April 12, 2005, and entered his preliminary decision on the Department’s internal database. On the same date, Mr. Strickland forwarded the permit file along with his preliminary decision and letter to his superior, Juanice Hagan. The preliminary decision was made within 30 days of receipt of Lamar’s application. Ms. Hagan did not testify at the hearing. However, at some point, Ms. Hagan approved Mr. Strickland’s preliminary decision and entered the official action of the Department on the Department’s public database. That database reflects the final decision to deny the application was made on April 20, 2005, outside of the 30 days of receipt of Lamar’s application. On the other hand, Ms. Hagan signed the Notice of Denied Application with an issuance date of April 12, 2005. Her signature indicates that her final approval, whenever it may have occurred, related back to April 12, 2005, and was within 30 days of receipt of Lamar’s application. Lamar received the Department’s letter denying its application, along with the return of its application and application fee. The letter contained a clear point of entry advising Lamar of its hearing rights under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. However, Lamar did not request a hearing concerning the denied application as required in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0042(3). Nor did Lamar inform the Department’s clerk in writing that it intended to rely on the deemer provision set forth in Section 120.60, Florida Statutes. Absent a Chapter 120 challenge to the Department’s action, the Department’s denial became final under Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0042(3). After the denial, Lamar performed a Height Above Ground Level (HAGL) test on the proposed sign’s site. The test is used to determine whether the sign face can be seen from a particular viewing location. Lamar determined that the South face could not be seen from SR366/West Pensacola Street due to some large trees located along the West side of Ocala Road and behind the gas station in front of the sign. Pictures of the area surrounding the sign’s proposed location, filed with the 2005 permit application, show a number of trees that are considerably taller than the roof of the adjacent gas station and utility poles. These trees appear to be capable of blocking the view of the sign face from SR366/West Pensacola Street and support the results from Lamar’s HAGL test. Since the sign could not be seen from a federal aid highway, it did not require a permit. Therefore, around August or October 2005, Lamar built the subject sign on the west side of Ocala Road and 222 feet north of SR 366/West Pensacola Street in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. As constructed, the sign sits on a large monopole with two faces, approximately 10 1/2 feet in height and 36 feet wide. The sign’s height above ground level is 28 feet extending upwards to 40 feet. The north face of the sign does not require a permit since it can only be seen from Ocala Road. Likewise, at the time of construction and for some time thereafter, the south face of the sign did not require a permit since it was not visible from a federal aid highway. Following construction of the subject sign, some of the large trees were removed. The removal caused the south face of the sign to be clearly visible from the main traveled way of SR366/West Pensacola Street. On March 21, 2007, the sign was issued a Notice of Violation for an illegally erected sign because it did not have a permit. The Notice of Violation stated: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the advertising sign noted below is in violation of section 479.01, Florida Statutes. An outdoor advertising permit is required but has not been issued for this sign. The Notice cited the wrong statute and, on June 12, 2008, an amended Notice of Violation for an illegally erected sign was issued by the Department. The Amended Notice changed the statutory citation from Section 479.01 to Section 479.07, Florida Statutes. Both the original Notice and Amended Notice stated the correct basis for the violation as: "An outdoor advertising permit is required but has not been issued for this sign." On December 18, 2007, Lamar submitted a second application for an Outdoor Advertising permit for an existing sign. The application was denied on January 8, 2008, due to spacing conflicts with permitted signs BX250 and BX251. The denial cited incorrect tag numbers for the sign causing the spacing conflict. The incorrect tag numbers were brought to the attention of Mr. Strickland. The Department conducted a field inspection of the sign’s area sometime between December 20, 2007 and January 20, 2008. The inspection confirmed that the spacing conflict was caused by signs BZ685 and BZ686. The signs were within 839 feet of the subject sign and owned by Lamar. An Amended Notice of Denied Application was issued by the Department on January 24, 2008. However, the evidence was clear that the Department made the decision to deny the application based on spacing conflicts on January 8, 2008. The fact that paperwork had to be made to conform to and catch up with that decision does not change the date the Department initially acted upon Lamar’s application. Therefore, the 2007 application was acted upon within 30 days. The Department’s employee responsible for issuing violation notices is Lynn Holschuh. She confirmed that if the south sign face was completely blocked from view from the main traveled way of SR366/West Pensacola Street when it was originally constructed, a sign permit would not be required from the Department. Ms. Holschuh further testified that if a change in circumstances occurred resulting in the subject sign becoming visible from the main traveled way of Pensacola Street, the sign might be permitted by the Department as a non-conforming sign, if it met the criteria for such. In this case, the south face of the sign was once legal and did not require a permit because several large trees blocked the sign’s visibility from a federal aid highway. The removal of the trees that blocked the sign caused the sign to become visible from a federal aid highway. In short, the south sign face no longer conformed to the Florida Statutes and Rules governing such signs and now is required to have a sign permit. However, the sign has not been in continuous existence for seven years and has received a Notice of Violation since its construction in 2005. The evidence was clear that the sign does not meet the requirements to qualify as a nonconforming sign and cannot be permitted as such. Therefore, Petitioner’s application for a sign permit should be denied and the sign removed pursuant to the Notice of Violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying Petitioner a permit for the sign located on the west side of Ocala Road, 222 feet North of SR366/West Pensacola Street and enforcing the Notice of Violation for said sign and requiring removal of the south sign face pursuant thereto. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 15th day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kimberly Clark Menchion, 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, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Alexis M. Yarbrough, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Stephanie Kopelousos, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Larry Brummitt owned a sign on U.S. 90 in Greenville, Florida advertising Country Corner for which he held a permit for seven or eight years. U.S. 90 is a federal-aid primary highway. Mr. Brummitt desired to rebuild and relocate this sign a short distance from its authorized location and, to insure he did things properly, sought advice both from the advertising sign inspectors at Lake City and from the State Administrator of the Outdoor Advertising Section in Tallahassee. At both places he was told that be could not get an application for a new sign approved until his existing sign was removed because the new sign would violate the spacing requirements of Rule 14D-10.06(b)3, Florida Administrative Code while the existing sign was up; that an application would not be accepted while the former sign was standing; that the policy of the Department, when conflicting interests desired to erect signs where only one could be erected, was the person whose application was first received would be approved. The Department's long-standing policy, which was memorialized in a memorandum to all District Outdoor Advertising Sign Administrators in 1978, is that where conflicting applications for signs are received, the first submitted will be approved. Relying upon this information, Petitioner prepared his application, removed the old sign, and at 10:00 a.m. on 2 June 1980 presented his application to Respondent for a permit to erect his replacement sign. On 24 March 1980 American Sign and Indicator Company first approached Respondent's sign inspector to inquire about erecting a time and temperature sign for the Bank of Greenville. They were told that a permit for such a sign could not be issued because it would be within 500 feet of the Country Corner sign and would violate the spacing requirements unless Brummit's sign was first moved. At 1400 hours on 2 June 1980 American Sign and Indicator Company presented an application at the Lake City Headquarters of Respondent for a permit to erect a time and temperature sign at approximately the same location earlier requested by Brummitt. In his letter of 11 June 1980 the District Administrator, Outdoor Advertising, in Lake City advised Mr. Brummitt that his application was being disapproved and of his right to petition for an administrative hearing within 14 days or the denial would become final. As reasons for denying the application the letter stated: The application indicates the proposed location would be within 500 feet if a proposed time and temperature display to be erected by the Bank of Greenville in the County of Madison. The Bank of Greenville has been dealing in good faith with the Department to erect this display since January 5th, 1980. After obtaining the necessary criteria and additional expenses accrued, the Department feels the bank should be allowed to erect the display, because we feel they were the first applicant. When questioned by the Hearing Officer how Respondent "reasoned" the bank's application was received prior to Petitioner's application, the District Sign Inspector acknowledged that he had discussed these applications with the Chief Right-of-Way Agent in District 2, Mr. Bielling, under whose supervision the Outdoor Advertising Section comes, that Mr. Bielling is his boss and tells him what to do (Tr. p. 24-25) and that as far as the sign inspector is concerned, Mr. Bielling has the prerogative to change DOT policy.
The Issue At issue in these consolidated proceedings is whether the permits for signs bearing tag numbers BT339, AE862, and AX116 should be revoked, pursuant to Section 479.08, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Lamar owns and maintains outdoor advertising signs in the State of Florida. Pursuant to the permitting requirements of Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, the Department issues permits and tags to outdoor advertising signs along interstate and federal-aid primary highway systems. Signs that met permitting criteria at the time they were erected, but that do not comply with subsequently enacted laws or that no longer comply with the law due to changed conditions, may nonetheless be permitted and maintained as "nonconforming signs."1 In compliance with Subsection 479.02(8), Florida Statutes, the Department in 1997 and 1998 conducted a statewide inventory of all signs on the state interstate and federal-aid primary highway systems. This inventory became the database for all signs permitted at the time it was completed. The Department sent the inventory results to all sign owners in order to provide them an opportunity to confirm or challenge the accuracy of the results. The database includes the location of the sign; the dates the sign was permitted and constructed; its date and method of construction; the height, including the Height Above Ground Level ("HAGL"); the height, width, and square footage of the sign facing; the number and type of support structures used; whether the sign is lighted or not; the status of the sign as a conforming, nonconforming, or illegal sign; and other identifying information. Subsection 479.02(8), Florida Statutes, provides that the inventory of signs is to be updated no less than every two years. The Department in fact performs the update every year. In 2004, a series of hurricanes passed through Florida, destroying or damaging thousands of outdoor advertising signs. The Department issued notices of intent to revoke the permits of nonconforming signs that appeared to have been destroyed by the storms. In February 2005, the Department and Lamar entered into a settlement agreement that allowed Lamar to rebuild some signs and required the removal of others. The signs at issue in this proceeding were among those allowed to remain standing with repair. As to these signs, the settlement agreement provided: The outdoor advertising signs referenced above remain lawfully erected nonconforming signs and LAMAR may repair said signs, provided that said repair shall be at the pre-storm location and to pre-storm specifications, including configuration, type of materials, height, size, area of face and lighting. Exceptions to pre-storm specifications will be allowed to the extent required to comply with local building codes. Such repairs shall be completed within 270 days of entry of a Final Order approving this Joint Stipulation of Settlement. The referenced Final Order was entered on March 15, 2005. The Department issued permit numbers 13778 and 137790 and tag numbers BT339 (replaced by tag number CF221 at the time of the hearing) and AE862 to a nonconforming, back-to-back sign located along U.S. 1 in Martin County, .08 miles north of Constitution Boulevard in Hobe Sound. At the time of the 1997 inventory, the Martin County sign was a five-pole wooden structure. The Martin County sign sustained heavy damage during the 2004 hurricanes. After the storms, Lamar sent a work crew to the sign's location to rebuild the sign. The work crew replaced the sign with a four-pole wooden structure. Dave Henry, the real estate leasing manager for Lamar, testified that he gave the crew no particular instruction on how to rebuild the sign. During the rebuilding process, Mr. Henry gave his crews the locations, and told them to rebuild the signs as they had been before the storms. Mr. Henry stated that the crew probably looked at the remains of the damaged sign, saw only four stumps in the ground, and assumed that the original sign had only four supports. On March 21, 2006, the Department issued a Notice to Lamar, stating that the sign bearing tag numbers BT339 and AE862 "has been structurally changed and is no longer substantially the same as it was on the date it became nonconforming, in violation of s. [sic] 14-10.007(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code Rule." On February 20, 2007, a Recommended Order was entered in Lamar South Florida v. Department of Transportation, Case No. 06-3281 (DOAH February 20, 2007). In that case, Judge R. Bruce McKibben recommended that the Department withdraw a Notice issued to Lamar South Florida because the Notice failed to specify exactly which changes to the sign in question caused the sign to be in violation of the Department's rules. Rather, the Notice merely provided a citation to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2)(a). In a final order dated May 21, 2007, the Department accepted Judge McKibben's recommendation, and acknowledged the "apparent confusion" regarding the running of the 30-day notice period and the nature of the notice required to trigger the running of that period. As a result of the Lamar South Florida case, the Department began to issue Notices that contained more specific information regarding the alleged violations. On July 31, 2007, the Department sent Lamar a replacement Notice for the Martin County sign, adding a more specific description of the violation, which stated that the sign "has been structurally modified in violation of s. [sic] 14-10.007(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code Rule: the number of supports has changed."2 The replacement notice also added the following provision: REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT(S) WILL BECOME FINAL thirty (30) days from your receipt of this notice unless you provide information to the Department showing the Notice was issued in error OR you correct the violation within 30 days of your receipt of this Notice, and provide evidence of the correction to the Department. For nonconforming signs, while you may correct the violation, you may not exceed the allowable maintenance standards as stated in s. 14-10.007(2), F.A.C. Lamar did not act within 30 days of the Notice to correct the violation and restore the Martin County sign to a five-pole structure. Mr. Henry testified that a fifth pole was added to the structure on November 16, 2007. The Department issued permit number 7359 and tag number AX116 to a nonconforming, single-faced sign in Polk County along U.S. 27, .141 miles east of Heatherwood Boulevard in Lake Wales. On November 22, 1997, the Polk County sign was inventoried and photographed as a seven-pole wooden structure. Lamar did not own the sign at the time the 2004 hurricanes damaged it. Lamar acquired the Polk county sign in 2005, after it had been rebuilt as a six-pole structure. On March 21, 2006, the Department issued a Notice to Lamar, stating that the sign bearing tag number AX116 "has been structurally changed and is no longer substantially the same as it was on the date it became nonconforming, in violation of s. [sic] 14-10.007(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code." On July 31, 2007, the Department sent Lamar a replacement Notice for the Polk County sign, adding a more specific description of the violation which stated that the sign "has been structurally modified in violation of s. [sic] 14- 10.007(2), Florida Administrative Code: the number of supports has changed. . .".3 The replacement notice also contained the language quoted at finding of fact 14, supra. Lamar did not act within 30 days of the Notice to correct the violation and restore the Polk County sign to a seven-pole structure.
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 revoking the permits for the nonconforming signs bearing tag numbers BT339, AE862, and AX116. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 21st day of February, 2008.
The Issue Whether respondent's nonconforming sign was destroyed by an Act of God, and therefore its license should be revoked, or whether respondent's sign was merely damaged and the action taken by respondent constitutes reasonable repair and maintenance of the sign.
Findings Of Fact Harvey's Groves, Inc. is a citrus grower, shipper and retailer. Harvey's Groves has three retail stores in Brevard County. Ten billboards advertise these stores. Two signs advertise the store located at the intersection of I-95 and State Road 50. One of those signs is located one mile north of the intersection and advertises to traffic headed south. The other sign, which is the sign involved in this dispute, is located five miles south of the intersection. It is designed to advertise to northbound motorists, especially tourists on their return trip north. This sign has been in existence since the mid or late sixties. Respondent holds DOT sign permit number 7865-10 for the sign located five miles south of the intersection of I-95 and state road 50. The sign is a nonconforming sign as defined in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The sign is located in an area zoned agricultural, and thus would be prohibited except for its nonconforming status. On December 14, 1985, the sign was blown down by a windstorm. All six of the poles which supported the sign snapped a few feet above the ground and below the face of the sign resulting in the rest of the sign structure falling flat on its back. Other than the snapped poles, the sign was only slightly damaged. The two stringers on the top left hand corner of the sign and the top stringer on the right end of the sign had been broken but the remainder of the structure was basically intact. The sign face was still attached to the structure. The majority of the sign face had not been damaged. Mr. Harvey, the only person who saw the sign face prior to its repair, testified that two of the 4' x 8' panels had cracked but were still usable. However, the pictures of the old sign face, introduced-into evidence by respondent, showed that three 4' x 8' panels were missing from the sign face and apparently needed to be replaced. Further, two panels that were in the sign face at the time the pictures were taken contained no copy, and thus appeared to be replacement panels, but no evidence was presented to explain the blank panels. Prior to December 14, 1985, the sign consisted of a 14' x 40' rectangular sign face, with "cutouts" or embellishments which extended the height of the sign at certain points, attached to a sign structure consisting of six perpendicular poles and seven horizontal stringers. The sign face was attached to the stringers which ran the width of the sign. The stringers consisted of 2" x 4" boards which were nailed or spliced together to run the 40' width of the sign. A 2" x 4" board does not come in a 40' length. The poles extended approximately 18 feet above ground level; however, additional boards had been attached to the top of the poles so that the top of the sign extended above the top of the poles. The top two horizontal stringers supporting the sign face were located above the top of the pole that was measured as extending 18 feet above ground level. (R.Ex.#4) The HAGL, or height above ground level, of a sign is measured from the ground to the bottom of the sign face. Immediately prior to December 14, 1985, the HAGL of the sign was approximately 10 feet. However, the evidence was conflicting as to whether the HAGL had always been the same. Mr. King testified that the HAGL was measured in 1976, and at that time the HAGL was five feet. However, although Mr. King personally measured the sign, his testimony was not based on his personal knowledge of the measurement, but was instead based on his recollection of what the DOT records indicated the sign measured. The only record of DOT introduced into evidence, the Outdoor Advertising Inventory Update Listing, listed the HAGL at four feet. However, the computer printout listing alone is not sufficient to establish the HAGL of the sign because there was no competent evidence establishing the source, date, or reliability of the information. Further, other evidence is inconsistent with a 4-foot HAGL. Mr. Wright measured one of the broken poles and determined that the part of the pole still standing was four feet from the ground level to the break on top. However, petitioner's exhibit number 8, which shows the measured pole, notes the location of a 1964 permit tag affixed to the pole. The permit tag is not located on the 4-foot portion of the pole that is still standing; it is located on the portion of the pole that had broken off, and it is located well above the break. Thus, it is apparent that the HAGL could not have been four feet because that would put the permit tag behind the sign face. Petitioner argues that the HAGL had to be only four feet because the broken pole measured 18 feet above ground level and a 14-foot sign face on an 18-foot pole would leave only four feet between the bottom of the sign face and the ground. However, petitioner's argument is premised on the assumption that the top of the sign face was level with the top of the pole. There was no evidence presented to support this assumption. To the contrary, as found in the proceeding paragraph, the evidence clearly indicated that the top of the sign face was located above the top of the pole. Thus, in that there was no competent evidence to the contrary, the testimony of Mr. Harvey, that the HAGL has always been the same, is accepted, and it is found that the HAGL of the sign at all pertinent times prior to December 14, 1985, was approximately 10 feet. Prior to December 14, 1985, the sign was well maintained and in good condition. Every year in October or November the sign was checked to determine if any repairs were necessary. Every two or three years the sign was painted. On December 14 or 15, 1985, Mr. Harvey was advised that the sign was down. He went to the location and found the sign intact, flat on its back, and all six poles broken. Since the sign was down, Mr. Harvey had the sign face removed and taken to Harbor City Signs for painting. About three weeks after the incident, respondent installed six new poles that were 30' in length and extended about 24' above ground level. Respondent put all new stringers on the poles because it was easier and faster to put up new stringers than to remove the stringers from the old poles and put them on the new poles. Because the sign is responsible for a substantial amount of respondent's business, respondent's major concern was to get the sign back up as soon as possible. On January 21 and 22, 1986, Mr. King went to the location. He observed that the old sign structure was on the ground and that a new sign structure, with all new stringers and poles, had been erected. The new structure had nine stringers and the bottom stringer was approximately ten feet above the ground. The sign face had not been attached to the new structure. Mr. King placed a stop work order on the structure. When respondent was ready to attach the repainted sign face, apparently a short time after Mr. King's inspection, the stop work order was discovered. Thereafter, and apparently in an attempt to comply with what he perceived the DOT rules to be, Mr. Harvey had the new stringers removed from the new poles and had the stringers from the old structure affixed to the new poles. The new structure contained 10 horizontal stringers supporting the-sign face, one of which was new material. The cutout was also supported by a new horizontal stringer and a new perpendicular stringer. (P.Ex.10 and 12) The sign face was attached to this structure in March of 1986. The repainted sign face was essentially the same as it was prior to the accident, except that at the bottom, where it previously had stated "Indian River's Finest Citrus", the sign stated "Next Exit Florida's Best." The HAGL of the reerected sign was approximately the same as the old sign. Although Mr. King testified that the new HAGL was about 12 feet and Mr. Wright testified that the new HAGL was from 12-14 feet, their testimony was simply what they estimated the HAGL to be. Mr. Clayton, who actually affixed the stringers and repainted sign face, testified that the repainted sign face was placed at the same height above ground level as it had been before. Further, the photos taken of the sign in March and July (P.Ex.#5 and #10) do not support a finding that the new HAGL was 12-14 feet. Even if the measurement of 28 1/2 feet drawn on petitioner's exhibit number 10 were accurate, and there was no testimony revealing how this figure was derived, it is not useful in determining the HAGL since it purports to measure the distance from the top of the cutout to the ground. The 14' height of the sign does not include the height of the cutout, and there was no testimony to establish how many feet the cutout added to the height of the sign. Therefore, the testimony of Mr. Clayton is accepted as being the most competent evidence regarding the new HAGL. Thus, the HAGL on the sign after the sign face had been replaced was approximately 10 feet. After the sign face was attached in March, the sign looked about the same as it had prior to December. The sign's location in relationship to the road was the same and the HAGL was approximately the same. There was no increase in visibility. As Mr. King testified, there was no significant difference in the way the sign looked after its repair and the way it looked prior to December 14, 1985. There was no evidence presented concerning the actual cost expended by respondent to repair or rebuild the sign. There also was no evidence presented concerning the depreciated value of the sign prior to December 14, 1985. The only evidence presented as to cost was an estimate of the cost to replace the six poles. It was estimated that a new pole would cost about eighty or ninety dollars and that it would cost about thirty dollars per pole to have the poles placed in the ground.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation's violation notices seeking revocation of sign permit number 7865-10 be dismissed and that permit number 7865-10 remain in effect as a permit for the nonconforming sign located five miles south of the intersection of I-95 and State Road 50. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 2nd day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0967T Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in paragraph 2. Rejected as stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Accepted, except evidence showed seven stringers, in paragraph 5. Accepted in paragraph 2. Accepted, except as to date, in paragraph 3. Accepted in paragraphs 8 and 9. Accepted generally in paragraphs 9 and 10. Accepted in paragraph 4. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence in paragraph 11. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1-2. Accepted in paragraph 1. Accepted in paragraph 2. Rejected as irrelevant since only the depreciated value of the structural materials in the- sign is relevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted generally in paragraphs 5 and 6. Accepted in paragraph 7. 8-9. Accepted generally in paragraphs 3 and 4, except as to number panels replaced and damage to stringers. Whether panels could have been reused is irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant (see ruling on paragraph 4). Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence and contrary finding in paragraph 8. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted except as to date in paragraph 9 and in Background section. Accepted generally in paragraph 10. Rejected as irrelevant since only actual costs of new materials is irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted as stated in paragraph 10. Accepted in paragraph 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victor M. Watson, Esquire 1970 Michigan Avenue Building C Cocoa, Florida Kaye Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
