MAYOR COMBS:  The first item under New Business is the Billboard Appeal and, Mike; I don’t understand some of this whole process so I’m going to let you direct it.  That’s one of the reasons we wanted to make sure you were here since you have a history with the town and our sign ordinance.  Uh, I’ve heard quasi…something meeting, or whatever.  Whatever we’ve got to do to make this thing official and legal, tell us.

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  I really don’t know that an appeal in this case is a quasi judicial hearing.  I think it is merely an opportunity for the developer to make whatever statement they want to make if they are here.  I’m assuming they are.  If they are and the owner has a statement that he would like you all to consider, my statement to Tom was no one should be precluded that opportunity even though I can tell you that this ordinance on its face says there are no billboards.  It is a prohibited sign in The Town of Shalimar.  That tells me there is no factual evidence that need be submitted about whether or not they can be built but nothing tells me that you shouldn’t permit somebody from standing up to say, either “your ordinance is invalid” or something.  They certainly have that right.

MAYOR COMBS:  So, how do we proceed?

STEVE GALBERAITH:  Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission.  My name is Steve Galberaith and, uh, I’m one of the owners of Action Outdoor Advertising.  Our business address is 3512 Old Milton Parkway ; Alpharetta , Georgia .  With me tonight are my other two partners Jack Hartrampf and Larry McCurdy.  We three together own Action Outdoor Advertising.  Before, as the City Attorney stated, uh, we agree, I don’t think this is a factual question.  But for us to appeal the decision, uh, Mr. Burns has made on behalf of the city, we have to exhaust our administrative remedies and one remedy available to us, the immediate remedy is to appeal Mr. Burns’ decision.  That appeal, according to the ordinance, has to be made to the town commission so I know I’m probably not one of the most popular people in the room tonight but, uh, this is something we have to do if our decision down the road is to contest the sign ordinance in another arena.  So I will be making a statement at the end of my presentation we will give each one of you a copy of that statement.  Uh, before we proceed I just wanted to maybe take care of a couple housekeeping matters.  There’s two sign applications that we submitted.  Uh, when Mr. Burns responded to us in rejecting our applications he responded with one letter concerning both applications.  So my question to the commission tonight is rather than making two separate presentations, one for each permit, that we just combine the two and I would make one presentation.  So does that meet with everybody’s approval?  (Everyone agreed).  The other thing I would like to mention is that we are having the meeting recorded tonight.  That was our request and, uh, in the event any of the commissioners may have any questions for me I would like to ask the city attorney if he would take a few moments to swear me in.  If he chooses not to I can have the court reporter do that.

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  No, it’s an unusual request but I’d be glad to do it.  If you’ll raise your right hand, please.  You don’t swear lawyers because you know they’re not going to say anything that’s true but if you’re not a lawyer…Do you attest that everything you are about to say will be the truth and all the truth so help you? 

STEVE GALBERAITH:  I do.  Thank you.  Uh, as everybody knows this involves two sign permit applications we submitted within the city limits for an off-premise sign-billboards.  Of course your ordinance prohibits off-premise signs and, uh, so I think it’s probably obvious to everybody here that it’s perhaps one of our intentions to contest the validity of that ordinance and, uh, so I’m going to read you this statement.  I’m not the best speaker in the world so bear with me.  Here we go.

Mr. Galberaith now read the attached statement.

We’ll give you all a copy of this.  I know that was probably boring but, uh, we have to reflect our records and, I guess depending on what action y’all take tonight we’ll have to make a decision on what action we take.  So if there’s any questions I’d be more than happy to try and answer them.

MAYOR COMBS:  Mike, would you like to…

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  If you don’t mind.  I wonder if there’s not some misunderstanding.  The reference that the speaker keeps making is to section 82 and the section numbers I have in my ordinance are sections 103-2 and article 3 of the code.

MANAGER BURNS:  Do you have the letter there that I referenced?

CLERK SMITH:  (Got up to retrieve a current code book and spoke with Mr. Galberaith on the way out of the room) Do you need copies of something or do you already have them?

STEVE GALBERAITH:  (To Town Clerk) I’ve got ‘em.  (To Town Commission) I’ve got Tom’s letter right here.

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  Do you have Ordinance 99-07?  Is that the ordinance you’re referring to?

STEVE GALBERAITH:  I probably should let Tom address this.  It’s been codified as section 82, if that’ll help.

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  O.K. then if you’ve the same information appears in section 82 of the code of ordinances.

MANAGER BURNS:  Correct, Sir.  Ordinance 99-07 is recodified last year and I believe the section, it is…

STEVE GALBERAITH:  82

MANAGER BURNS:  …Section 82.  There are subsections within 82.

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  You’ve raised the argument having to do with the erection of signage on public property.  So there’s no misunderstanding nothing you’re seeking to erect here is a public property sign?  Would that…

STEVE GALBERAITH:  That’s correct.  It’s one of the aspects of the ordinance that we feel is not valid.

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  I don’t have any other questions, Mr. Chairman.

MAYOR COMBS:  I don’t have any questions, either.  I need to ask the commission.

COMMISSIONER BEHNKEN:  I thought that you normally bought the property already.

STEVE GALBERAITH:  The properties that we submitted on our applications, we are leasing this property and, I believe, we provided copies of the lease agreement as part of our applications.

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  Do you want to make a copy of your remarks as part of this record?

STEVE GALBERAITH:  Yes, I would.  Jack, if you don’t mind you’ll pass out, we have a copy of that statement for everyone or if the city attorney just needs it for the whole commission, that’s fine.

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  I figure we need a copy for the clerk.  I’d like a copy as well but certainly the clerk needs one.

MANAGER BURNS:  I would just like to say my letter lists one reference to my decision to deny these permits.  There are, probably, at least, I could have easily probably 6 or 7 other references.  My letter denying these permits originally is not all inclusive of some of the aberrations that I could have used in making my decision.

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  Tom, just for this record, this speaker might want to know, you’re saying there are other things wrong with this sign than just the fact that it is a billboard?

MANAGER BURNS:  Potentially, yes sir.

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  And that, does that have to do with…

MANAGER BURNS:  Normally I don’t take development orders or applications for building permits from other than the property owners.

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  I see.

MANAGER BURNS:  That was one of my original questions when I first started looking at this.

MAYOR COMBS:  Besides that it’s a billboard is that it exceeds the square footage of our commercial property.

CLERK SMITH:  and the height.

MANAGER BURNS:  In section 82 there are other references other than just the off-premise nature of the requested applications.  The size is one thing; we restrict the actual number of pole signs per commercial establishment based on a percentage of road frontage that has to do with the overall percentage of the copy area.  We also limit it to one pole sign per establishment and this would fall under the definition of a pole sign.

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  I see, and you’re saying that this establishment already has another pole sign?

MANAGER BURNS:  Yes they do.  Both establishments talking about is the Exprezit property – think one of the addresses of the operation is listed – and the other one is Herndon Oil Company which owns the Shell Station.  They bought that pole sign…

MAYOR COMBS:  speaking of that…can we go out and, I mean, legally measure that signage?  In other words, let’s see if, maybe, they have room for any other signs.

MANAGER BURNS:  They do not.

MAYOR COMBS:  But maybe we can go and measure those.

MANAGER BURNS:  Both of the signs at the Shell Station was rebuilt approximately 18 months ago and the signage for the Exprezit gas station when it changed from Chevron to the new owners of Exprezit – that’s a corporation out of North Carolina – I measured both of those signs at that time and issued those permits based on their maximum allowable…

MAYOR COMBS:  They are at their max?

MANAGER BURNS:  Yes, sir.

MAYOR COMBS:  O.K.

STEVE GALBERAITH:  Do I get an opportunity to try to just comment are there any other…

MANAGER BURNS:  One of the other things that was mentioned, I believe, was that there’s something wrong with the time period involved or my time period in order to respond to an application…that’s not in section 82 that’s in another section of the ordinance and it’s very specific about the Town Clerk/Manager’s responsibility in making a response in a timely manner. 

MAYOR COMBS:  It’s a certain amount of days.  They exceeded the days?

MANAGER BURNS:  No, sir, we did not.

STEVE GALBERAITH:  If there were other reasons that our applications were being rejected I think we should’ve been advised of that and I’ve heard two references, at least, that kind of caught my ear was the size and how much signage was already on the properties.  I’m just gonna…

MAYOR COMBS:  Wait, you read the ordinance, didn’t you?’

STEVE GALBERAITH:  I’ve read the ordinance very clear.

MAYOR COMBS:  You know that there is a total…

STEVE GALBERAITH:  OK, Mayor, there’s a section in your sign, in your ordinance that says, “subdivision number two, permanent on-site signs” then they give a whole bunch of restrictions for on-site signs including size, height, nothing that pertains to on-premise signs.  It’s all under on-site signs.

MAYOR COMBS:  You gonna build that billboard on the site?

STEVE GALBERAITH:  Let me carry that a little further…your definition of on-site sign is a ground sign.  A ground sign is only a sign that advertises what is on that business.  The business has got to be on that property.

MAYOR COMBS:  So even if you put a billboard up there that advertised that business, it still wouldn’t have this work, right?

STEVE GALBERAITH:  But we’re not putting up, we’re not requesting a sign that advertises what’s there.

MAYOR COMBS:  OK

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  You’re saying the sign that you are requesting will advertise something that may or may not be relevant to the Town of Shalimar or in the Town of Shalimar ?

STEVE GALBERAITH:  I, what I, no, that’s, uh, it will not advertise what is the business that’s being conducted on the premises.  It would advertise a business, perhaps, in Shalimar, perhaps, not.  That’s, maybe, down the street.

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  But, without question, the sign you seek to erect is a commercial sign not a non-commercial sign?

STEVE GALBERAITH:  Everybody in our industry we advertise both commercial and non-commercial statements, profits, organizations, so it possibly could advertise either one.

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  Well then you have commercial enterprise for your company?

STEVE GALBERAITH:  For us it is a commercial enterprise, that is correct. 

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  OK.  You’re not asking action of this council?

STEVE GALBERAITH:  As you stated, and I think you are entirely correct, based on the facts, based on your ordinance that’s in effect, Mr. Burns rejected our application and based upon those facts that’s what this board has to make a decision on.

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  OK. Well you’re aware, I haven’t heard you disagree that this ordinance requires that your application be rejected.

STEVE GALBERAITH:  Um…

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  So what you’re really asking is for a motion to change the ordinance.

STEVE GALBERAITH:  That’s entirely up to y’all.  You know, I’m not here picking on Shalimar.  We, uh, you know we have some business elsewhere in this area.  My two partners own residences in Destin.  I think the city’s ordinances has some constitutional issues.  We reviewed a number of cities in the area.  The Town of Shalimar has one main street and that’s Highway 85/Eglin Parkway.  That street, in addition to being controlled by the city is also controlled by the State of Florida in terms of their sign regulations.  The two locations that we submitted are all that will ever be permitted in this city by the State of Florida .  Even if y’all didn’t have any say-so whatsoever the State of Florida’s got a 1500 or 1000 foot spacing and there’s only two locations left in this city that have met that requirement and that’s the two we’ve applied for.

MAYOR COMBS:  By your definition of our ordinance isn’t that unconstitutional also?

STEVE GALBERAITH:  What’s that?

MAYOR COMBS:  The fact that they’re regulating how many signs you can put, I think you should be able to put one, any distance out there.  Is it safe?  I mean, the state’s ordinance, have you seen an ordinance that’s constitutional?

STEVE GALBERAITH:  The state does not prohibit what I’m trying to do.  You do.

MAYOR COMBS:  Who prohibits you from putting one on every business in Shalimar, the state?

STEVE GALBERAITH:  That’s probably a very interesting observation.

MAYOR COMBS:  So, obviously, in your opinion, there sign ordinance is unconstitutional.

STEVE GALBERAITH:  Well, when you say, “they” you mean the State of Florida which is regulated by the Federal Government Highway Beautification Act so, you know, if I say the state one is unconstitutional does that mean the federal one is?

MAYOR COMBS:  Have you seen a sign ordinance that you feel is constitutional?

STEVE GALBERAITH:  I’m going to put it this way, sign ordinances, with our experience, that don’t distinguish between what goes on that sign is a, pretty much, a constitutional ordinance but your ordinance does.  That’s really the best way I can put it.

MAYOR COMBS:  What are we gonna do, Mike?

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  Well, if there is a motion to change the ordinance then somebody needs to make that motion.  If there is no such motion then Mr. Galberaith’s presentation is informational only.  If there’s a motion instructing some action in violation of the ordinance, in other words, you say, “Let’s issue a building permit or permit this time” even though it’s in violation of the ordinance.  You can do that and I will tell you that it’s out of order for the present; it’s an out of order motion if it were to be made.  So I think that the only thing that you could do is if you choose to make a motion to change the ordinance and if there’s no such motion then the matter is informational and dies for lack of a motion.

MAYOR COMBS:  I’ll entertain a motion…do I have a motion?

COMMISSIONER LARSON:  I do not have a motion at this time.

MAYOR COMBS:  No motion.  (To Action Outdoor Advertising representatives) Thank you for your presentation.

STEVE GALBERAITH:  So what happens?

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  I imagine you guys are going to go have dinner somewhere and understand that you were courteously received by the Town of Shalimar who declined to change their ordinance.

STEVE GALBERAITH:  Oh, OK, and what did they do in reference to the appeal of Mr. Burns’ denial?

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  There’s no action that they can take and no action necessary in my opinion.  I think what they’re saying is that Mr. Burns’ denial was appropriate.

STEVE GALBERAITH:  OK, that’s all I’m asking is that was his denial upheld?

ATTORNEY CHESSER:  Yes, it was not reversed and therefore it was upheld.

There was no motion and Mayor Combs thanked Mr. Galberaith and Action Outdoor Advertising for their presentation.