Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 333.07 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 333.07 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 333.07 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 333.07

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXV
AVIATION
Chapter 333
AIRPORT ZONING
View Entire Chapter
333.07 Local government permitting of airspace obstructions.
(1) PERMITS.
(a) A person proposing to construct, alter, or allow an airport obstruction in an airport hazard area in violation of the airport protection zoning regulations adopted under this chapter must apply for a permit. A permit may not be issued if it would allow the establishment or creation of an airport hazard or if it would permit a nonconforming obstruction to become a greater hazard to air navigation than it was when the applicable airport protection zoning regulation was adopted which allowed the establishment or creation of the obstruction, or than it is when the application for a permit is made.
(b) If the political subdivision or its administrative agency determines that a nonconforming obstruction has been abandoned or is more than 80 percent torn down, destroyed, deteriorated, or decayed, a permit may not be granted if it would allow the obstruction to exceed the applicable height limit or otherwise deviate from the airport protection zoning regulations. Whether or not an application is made for a permit under this subsection, the owner of the nonconforming obstruction may be required, at his or her own expense, to lower, remove, reconstruct, alter, or equip such obstruction as may be necessary to conform to the current airport protection zoning regulations. If the owner of the nonconforming obstruction neglects or refuses to comply with such requirement for 10 days after notice, the administrative agency may report the violation to the political subdivision involved, which subdivision, through its appropriate agency, may proceed to have the obstruction so lowered, removed, reconstructed, altered, or equipped and assess the cost and expense thereof upon the owner of the obstruction or the land whereon it is or was located.
(2) CONSIDERATIONS WHEN ISSUING OR DENYING PERMITS.In determining whether to issue or deny a permit, the political subdivision or its administrative agency must consider the following, as applicable:
(a) The safety of persons on the ground and in the air.
(b) The safe and efficient use of navigable airspace.
(c) The nature of the terrain and height of existing structures.
(d) The effect of the construction or alteration on the state licensing standards for a public-use airport contained in chapter 330 and rules adopted thereunder.
(e) The character of existing and planned flight operations and developments at public-use airports.
(f) Federal airways, visual flight rules, flyways and corridors, and instrument approaches as designated by the Federal Aviation Administration.
(g) The effect of the construction or alteration of the proposed structure on the minimum descent altitude or the decision height at the affected airport.
(h) The cumulative effects on navigable airspace of all existing structures and all other known proposed structures in the area.
(i) Additional requirements adopted by the political subdivision or administrative agency pertinent to evaluation and protection of airspace and airport operations.
(3) OBSTRUCTION MARKING AND LIGHTING.In issuing a permit under this section, the political subdivision or its administrative agency shall require the owner of the obstruction to install, operate, and maintain thereon, at his or her own expense, marking and lighting in conformance with the specific standards established by the Federal Aviation Administration.
History.s. 7, ch. 23079, 1945; s. 5, ch. 88-356; s. 76, ch. 90-136; s. 483, ch. 95-148; s. 33, ch. 2016-10; s. 7, ch. 2016-209; s. 28, ch. 2016-239.

F.S. 333.07 on Google Scholar

F.S. 333.07 on CourtListener

Amendments to 333.07


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 333.07

Total Results: 3  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

New Port Largo, Inc., a Florida Corp., Charles H. Netter & Stuart D. Marr, New Port Largo, Etc. v. Monroe Cnty., a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Kenneth Sorensen, Bd. Member of Cnty. Commissioners, Monroe Plan. & Zoning, Donald Schloesser, Commissioners Bd., Alison Fahrer, Commissioners Bd., Curt Blair, Commissioners Bd., & George Dolezal, Commissioners Bd., Wilhelmenia Harvey, New Port Largo, Inc., Charles H. Netter & Stuart D. Marr, New Port Largo, Etc. v. Monroe Cnty., a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Kenneth Sorensen, Etc., 985 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1993).

Cited 49 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 4807

...7 ("ripeness [of a just compensation claim] goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case") 10 The record suggests two possible scenarios. The first scenario assumes that NPL could have, but did not, seek available variances or permits. See Fla.Stat. § 333.07(1), (2) (1989)....
...enacted by defendant ... only permitted use [of the property] as a private airport." Record, vol. 5, at 1, no. 158-22. Moreover, Florida law restricts the availability of variances and permits to uses which do not create "airport hazards." Fla.Stat. § 333.07(1)(a); see also id. § 333.01(3) (defining "Airport hazard"); id. § 333.02 ("Airport hazards contrary to public interest"); id. § 333.07(2)(a) (variances must not be contrary to the public interest)....
Copy

Waring v. Peterson, 137 So. 2d 268 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962).

Cited 5 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

...ed in effect that the plaintiffs had not furnished sufficient proof to sustain their contention that the "void for vagueness" rule renders the ordinance invalid. From our study we cannot say that plaintiffs met the burden of proof imposed upon them. Section 333.07(2) sets out in essence that persons seeking variance might apply to the board of adjustment and that such variances shall be allowed when a literal application or enforcement of the regulations would result in practical difficulty or u...
Copy

New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe Cnty., 985 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1993).

Cited 3 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1993 WL 52521

available variances or permits. See Fla.Stat. § 333.07(1), (2) (1989). Until NPL sought such relief,

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.