Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 479.07 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 479.07 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 479.07 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 479.07

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXII
REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS
Chapter 479
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING
View Entire Chapter
479.07 Sign permits.
(1) Except as provided in ss. 479.105(1) and 479.16, a person may not erect, operate, use, or maintain, or cause to be erected, operated, used, or maintained, any sign on the State Highway System outside an urban area or on any portion of the interstate or federal-aid primary highway system without first obtaining a permit for the sign from the department and paying the annual fee as provided in this section. As used in this section, the term “on any portion of the State Highway System, interstate highway system, or federal-aid primary system” means a sign located within the controlled area which is visible from any portion of the main-traveled way of such system.
(2) Written permission of the owner or other person in lawful possession or control of the site designated as the location of the sign is required for issuance of a permit.
(3)(a) An application for a sign permit must be made on a form prescribed by the department, and a separate application must be submitted for each permit requested. A permit is required for each sign facing.
(b) As part of the application, the applicant or his or her authorized representative must certify that all information provided in the application is true and correct. Each permit application must be accompanied by the appropriate permit fee; a signed statement by the owner or other person in lawful control of the site on which the sign is located or will be erected, authorizing the placement of the sign on that site; a statement from the appropriate local governmental official indicating that the sign complies with all local government requirements; and, if a local government permit is required for a sign, a statement that the agency or unit of local government will issue a permit to that applicant upon approval of the state permit application by the department.
(c) The annual permit fee for each sign facing shall be established by the department in an amount sufficient to offset the total cost to the department for the program, but may not be greater than $100. The first-year fee may be prorated by payment of an amount equal to one-fourth of the annual fee for each remaining whole quarter or partial quarter of the permit year. Applications received after the end of the third quarter of the permit year must include fees for the last quarter of the current year and fees for the succeeding year.
(4) An application for a permit shall be acted on by granting, denying, or returning the incomplete application within 30 days after receipt of the application by the department.
(5)(a) For each permit issued, the department shall furnish to the applicant a serially numbered permanent metal permit tag. The permittee is responsible for maintaining a valid permit tag on each permitted sign facing at all times. The tag shall be securely attached to the upper 50 percent of the sign structure, and attached in such a manner as to be plainly visible from the main-traveled way. The permit tag must be properly and permanently displayed at the permitted site within 30 days after the date of permit issuance. If the permittee fails to erect a completed sign on the permitted site within 270 days after the date on which the permit was issued, the permit will be void, and the department may not issue a new permit to that permittee for the same location for 270 days after the date on which the permit becomes void.
(b) If a permit tag is lost, stolen, or destroyed, the permittee to whom the tag was issued must apply to the department for a replacement tag. The department shall establish a service fee for replacement tags in an amount that will recover the actual cost of providing the replacement tag. Upon receipt of the application accompanied by the service fee, the department shall issue a replacement permit tag.
(c)1. As soon as practicable, the department shall create and implement a publicly accessible electronic database to include all permits issued by the department. At a minimum, the database must include the name and contact information of the permit operator, the structure identification number or numbers, the panel or face identification number or numbers, the latitude and longitude of the permitted sign, the compass bearing, images of the permitted sign once constructed, and the most recent date the department visually inspected the permitted sign.
2. Once the department creates and implements the publicly accessible electronic database:
a. The department may not furnish permanent metal permit tags or replacement tags to permittees;
b. The department may not enforce the provisions relating to permanent metal permit tags or replacement tags specified in paragraphs (a) and (b); and
c. Permittees are not required to return permit tags to the department as provided in subsection (8).
(6) A permit is valid only for the location specified in the permit. Valid permits may be transferred from one sign owner to another upon written acknowledgment from the current permittee and submittal of a transfer fee of $5 for each permit to be transferred. However, the maximum transfer fee for any multiple transfer between two outdoor advertisers in a single transaction is $100.
(7) A permittee shall at all times maintain the permission of the owner or other person in lawful control of the sign site in order to have and maintain a sign at such site.
(8)(a) In order to reduce peak workloads, the department may provide for staggered expiration dates for licenses and permits. Unless otherwise provided for by rule, all licenses and permits expire annually on January 15. All license and permit renewal fees are required to be submitted to the department by no later than the expiration date. At least 105 days before the expiration date of licenses and permits, the department shall send to each permittee a notice of fees due for all licenses and permits that were issued to him or her before the date of the notice. Such notice must list the permits and the permit fees due for each sign facing. The permittee shall, no later than 45 days before the expiration date, advise the department of any additions, deletions, or errors contained in the notice. Permit tags that are not renewed shall be returned to the department for cancellation by the expiration date. Permits that are not renewed or are canceled shall be certified in writing at that time as canceled or not renewed by the permittee, and permit tags for such permits shall be returned to the department or shall be accounted for by the permittee in writing, which writing shall be submitted with the renewal fee payment or the cancellation certification. However, failure of a permittee to submit a permit cancellation does not affect the nonrenewal of a permit. Before cancellation of a permit, the permittee shall provide written notice to all persons or entities having a right to advertise on the sign that the permittee intends to cancel the permit.
(b) If a permittee has not submitted his or her fee payment by the expiration date of the licenses or permits, the department shall send a notice of violation to the permittee within 45 days after the expiration date, requiring the payment of the permit fee within 30 days after the date of the notice and payment of a delinquency fee equal to 10 percent of the original amount due or, in the alternative to these payments, requiring the filing of a request for an administrative hearing to show cause why the sign should not be subject to immediate removal due to expiration of his or her license or permit. If the permittee submits payment as required by the violation notice, the license or permit shall be automatically reinstated and such reinstatement is retroactive to the original expiration date. If the permittee does not respond to the notice of violation within the 30-day period, the department shall, within 30 days, issue a final notice of sign removal and may, following 90 days after the date of the department’s final notice of sign removal, remove the sign without incurring any liability as a result of such removal. However, if at any time before removal of the sign, the permittee demonstrates that a good faith error on the part of the permittee resulted in cancellation or nonrenewal of the permit, the department may reinstate the permit if:
1. The permit reinstatement fee of up to $300 based on the size of the sign is paid;
2. All other permit renewal and delinquent permit fees due as of the reinstatement date are paid; and
3. The permittee reimburses the department for all actual costs resulting from the permit cancellation or nonrenewal.
(c) Conflicting applications filed by other persons for the same or competing sites covered by a permit subject to paragraph (b) may not be approved until after the sign subject to the expired permit has been removed.
(d) The cost for removing a sign by the department or an independent contractor shall be assessed by the department against the permittee.
(9)(a) A permit may not be granted for any sign for which a permit had not been granted by the effective date of this act unless such sign is located at least:
1. One thousand five hundred feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of the highway, if on an interstate highway.
2. One thousand feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of the highway, if on a federal-aid primary highway.

The minimum spacing provided in this paragraph does not preclude the permitting of V-type, back-to-back, side-to-side, stacked, or double-faced signs at the permitted sign site. If a sign is visible to more than one highway subject to the jurisdiction of the department and within the controlled area of the highways, the sign must meet the permitting requirements of all highways and be permitted to the highway having the more stringent permitting requirements.

(b) A permit may not be granted for a sign pursuant to this chapter to locate such sign on any portion of the interstate or federal-aid primary highway system, which sign:
1. Exceeds 50 feet in sign structure height above the crown of the main-traveled way to which the sign is permitted, if outside an incorporated area;
2. Exceeds 65 feet in sign structure height above the crown of the main-traveled way to which the sign is permitted, if inside an incorporated area; or
3. Exceeds 950 square feet of sign facing including all embellishments.
(c) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a)1., the distance between permitted signs on the same side of an interstate highway may be reduced to 1,000 feet if all other requirements of this chapter are met and if:
1. The local government has adopted a plan, program, resolution, ordinance, or other policy encouraging the voluntary removal of signs in a downtown, historic, redevelopment, infill, or other designated area which also provides for a new or replacement sign to be erected on an interstate highway within that jurisdiction if a sign in the designated area is removed;
2. The sign owner and the local government mutually agree to the terms of the removal and replacement; and
3. The local government notifies the department of its intention to allow such removal and replacement as agreed upon pursuant to subparagraph 2.
(d) This subsection does not cause a sign that was conforming on October 1, 1984, to become nonconforming.
(10) Commercial or industrial zoning that is not comprehensively enacted or that is enacted primarily to permit signs may not be recognized as commercial or industrial zoning for purposes of this provision, and permits may not be issued for signs in such areas.
History.s. 6, ch. 20446, 1941; s. 7, ch. 22858, 1945; s. 1, ch. 61-151; s. 2, ch. 63-237; s. 5, ch. 67-461; ss. 23, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 427, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 74-80; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; s. 2, ch. 78-138; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 7, 25, 26, ch. 84-227; s. 74, ch. 85-81; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 51, ch. 93-164; s. 38, ch. 94-237; s. 63, ch. 95-257; s. 2, ch. 96-201; s. 1120, ch. 97-103; s. 38, ch. 99-385; s. 7, ch. 2007-66; s. 22, ch. 2009-85; s. 39, ch. 2010-225; s. 95, ch. 2012-174; s. 9, ch. 2014-215; s. 30, ch. 2014-223; s. 50, ch. 2015-4; s. 25, ch. 2021-188.

F.S. 479.07 on Google Scholar

F.S. 479.07 on CourtListener

Amendments to 479.07


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 479.07

Total Results: 26  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Walker v. State, Dept. of Transp., 366 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Cited 12 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14026

...weight and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous ..." Since this litigation, DOT adopted a rule on December 10, 1977, [10] which states that late fees will not be accepted. In apparent response, the Legislature has amended Florida Statute § 479.07(3) to require DOT send *100 a second notice of fees due and allow for payment, with a 10% penalty for tardiness, after the due date....
...t fees from owners who do not timely tender them; and that the Department's 1977 rules against reinstatement of expired permits are overridden by 1978 legislation which is thought to codify the Department's "past practices." Chapter 78-138, amending Section 479.07(3), Florida Statutes (1977)....
...ng business and individual advertising signs near highways, whether or not owned by persons in the advertising business. "Licenses" to engage in the business were issuable under Section 479.04, whereas "individual device permits" were issuable under Section 479.07....
...ents in the application, or for other violations of Chapter 479. Sections 479.05, .08. But the law also provided for the immediate removal of a sign upon the expiration of its permit; and that without notice, hearing, or revocation proceedings. Thus Section 479.07 required payment of annual permit fees; forbade the erection or maintenance of any advertising sign "without first obtaining a permit therefor from the chairman [of the State Road Department] and paying the annual fee therefor"; prescr...
...00 or more, owned by one holding an "unexpired license" to engage in the advertising business. Few changes have been made in these regulatory measures since 1941. The annual permit fees are different now, but still nominal: at the rate prescribed by Section 479.07, Florida Statutes (1977), the annual permit fee for each of Mr....
...In 1963 the legislature changed the expiration date of permits from October 1 to January 1 and directed that, on or before the preceding December 1, the Department should send each licensee and permittee a notice listing each license and permit "which shall expire on the first day of January." Chapter 63-237, Florida Laws; Section 479.07(3), Florida Statutes (1963)-(1973). In 1974 the legislature directed that the annual notice be sent on or before November 1. Chapter 74-80, Florida Laws; Section 479.07(3), Florida Statutes (1974 Supp.)-(1977)....
...The 1974 amendment discontinued the annual issuance of identifying permit tags and provided that metal tags "of a kind furnished by the department for the year 1974" should be "considered permanent permit tags" when kept "currently valid" by the annual payment of renewal fees by January 1. Chapter 74-80, Florida Laws; Section 479.07(4), Florida Statutes (1974 Supp.). The 1974 legislature also introduced into Section 479.07(4) a slight ambiguity which provides a scarcely plausible basis for the Department's practice at that time, now abandoned, of reinstating expired permits, upon payment of overdue fees, for signs which could not lawfully be erected as new at the time of reinstatement. Section 479.07(3) previously stated that annual permits "expire" on January 1. Chapter 74-80, Florida Laws, amended that section to state, instead, that fees for annual permits shall be payable on January 1. [4] Chapter *105 479 elsewhere retained its references to permit expiration and its consequences: Section 479.07(4), Florida Statutes (1975), continued its presumption that a sign having no "currently valid permanent permit tag" is maintained in violation of Chapter 479 "and shall be subject to removal by legal representatives of the department."...
...479.04," in which case the owner was entitled to 30 days' notice and an opportunity, not to pay past due permit fees, but to show that his sign "does not violate the provisions of this chapter." In 1978, after the present controversy concerning Mr. Walker's three I-75 signs had fully matured, the legislature again amended Section 479.07(3) to provide for an additional notice to signowners who did not renew their permits before January 1: If the permittee does not pay such fees within the 60-day period [between November 1 and January 1], the department shall send a second notice to the permittee requiring payment within 30 days after the receipt of the notice together with payment of a delinquency fee of 10 percent of the amount originally due. [Chapter 78-138, Florida Laws; Section 479.07(3), Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.).] By the same act, the legislature extended the right of notice and opportunity for hearing to any "licensed or unlicensed" signowner whose sign the Department proposed to remove as unlawfully maintained....
...The other is whether notice and an opportunity to be heard must be given the owner when the Department determines that such a sign must be removed because its permit has expired. I think the answer to both questions is yes. A. Expiration and removal I think Sections 479.07, .10, and .17 are now and have been, since 1941, susceptible to no reasonable interpretation but that the Department is required to remove any advertising sign which is maintained "as a public and private nuisance" by an owner who fails to remove it within 30 days after expiration of its permit. That statement requires one qualification. If no other statute prevents it, and the owner tenders the appropriate fee, the Department may treat the offending sign as new, issue a new "serially numbered permanent metal permit tag," Section 479.07(4), or recognize the old one as revived, and issue a current annual permit....
...he signs were then "lawfully in existence." Section 479.23, Florida Statutes (1971), ante fn. 3. But in 1976, their permits having expired, the signs had no lawful existence. They were required to be removed without compensation pursuant to Sections 479.07, .10, and .17, and Section 479.11 prohibited their restoration....
...extensively regulated advertising signs and directed the removal "forthwith" of signs maintained in violation of Chapter 479, including those signs which are unlawfully maintained, as a public and private nuisance, under an expired permit. Sections 479.07, .10, and .17, Florida Statutes (1941)....
...I therefore have no doubt that Chapter 479 constitutionally subjects an individual advertising sign to removal by the owner, or by the Department if the owner refuses, when the permit for its maintenance has expired without timely renewal before January 1 of any year. Despite the imperatives of Sections 479.07, .10, and .17, I think the Department may decide as a matter of policy, though it is not required to do so, to treat such offending signs as new and revive their legitimacy, provided that they could lawfully be permitted as new in fact....
...e notice mailed on or before November 1, "the department shall send a second notice to the permittee requiring payment within 30 days after the receipt of notice together with payment of a delinquency fee of 10 percent of the amount originally due." Section 479.07(3), Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.)....
...38, Fla.Laws; Section 479.17, Florida Statutes (1979 Supp.).] Under 1978 provisions of Chapter 479, therefore, the owner of any sign whose permit has expired after a 60-day notice to renew, mailed on or before November 1, and a second 30-day notice, Section 479.07(3), Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.), is yet required to remove the sign within 30 additional days, at pain of prosecution for a misdemeanor, Section 479.10, and the sign is yet declared a "public and private nuisance" which the Departmen...
...Walker at the Monticello, Florida, address he had registered with the Department. In purpose and substance, if not in execution, the August 19, 1976 notice to Mr. Walker more than satisfied the spirit of the later-enacted 1978 amendments to Sections 479.07 and .17....
...forcement of Sections 479.10 and .17, to give signowners notice and a grace period for payment of past fees. At any rate, the Department undertook to do so, and the 30-day period for payment is not unreasonable. That same period is now prescribed by Section 479.07(3), Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.), for payment upon receipt of the second notice to pay delinquent fees....
...Walker tendered a $93 cashier's check in payment of permit fees for the three I-75 signs for 1975, 1976, and 1977. The tender was refused on the stated ground that those signs had been unlawfully maintained without "a currently valid permanent permit tag," in violation of Section 479.07(4), and that the Department "cannot renew permits for signs that are up illegally." The hearing officer concluded, as a matter of law, that the August 19, 1976 notice was effective, and that the periods it prescribed for Mr....
...Therefore the hearing officer's recommended order concluded: In summary, petitioner [Walker] failed to establish that respondent had any legal duty to accept the late tendered annual fees. Petitioner's signs along I-75 in Hamilton County are "subject to removal by legal representatives of the [respondent]." Section 479.07(4), Florida Statutes (1975)....
...In conclusion, I view the record as evidencing an earnest if incomplete attempt by the Department to comply with Chapter 479 and Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. I therefore concur in the result of the majority opinion on the merits, but would deny the motion for an award of fees. NOTES [1] Fla. Stat. § 479.07: "(1) [N]o person shall construct, erect, operate, use, maintain ......
...State Department of Transportation, Case # II-90; Peterson Outdoor Advertising v. State Department of Transportation, Case # II-88; A.W. Lee v. State Department of Transportation, 366 So.2d 116; and Outdoor Advertising Art v. State Department of Transportation, 366 So.2d 114. [6] Florida Statute § 479.07(1) and (4), amended effective January 1, 1975, to require DOT issue a permanent metal tag to be affixed by owner to each sign, states that these tags "shall be maintained on the structure until returned to the department for cancellation."...
...cut them all down. My order is to cut them down.'" [9] 30 Fla.Jur., Statutes, § 109, and cases cited therein. [10] Rule 14-10.04(3) F.A.R., Supp. # 86, "Fees for permits which are allowed to become delinquent will not be accepted." [11] Fla. Stat. § 479.07(3) "If the permittee does not pay such fees within the 60-day period, the department shall send a second notice to the permittee requiring payment within 30 days after the receipt of notice together with payment of a delinquency fee of 10 p...
...Fees for licenses which are allowed to become delinquent will not be accepted. [8] Section 479.08, entitled "Revocation of permit," provides: (1) The department may after 30 days' notice in writing to the permittee, revoke any permit issued by it under s. 479.07 upon repayment of a proportionate part of the fee in any case where it shall appear to the department that the application for the permit contains knowingly false or misleading information or that the permittee has violated any of the provi...
...hall, before the expiration of said 30 days, correct such false or misleading information and comply with the provisions of this chapter... . (2) Any person aggrieved by any action of the department in refusing to grant or in revoking a permit under s. 479.07 may, within the time provided by the Florida Appellate Rules after the date of such refusal or revocation apply to the circuit court for declaratory judgment as to the validity of said order of revocation as provided by chapter 86....
Copy

Hancock Advert. v. Dept. of Transp., 549 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2285, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5309, 1989 WL 110924

...outdoor advertising sign Hancock had erected near the intersection of Interstate 95 (I-95) and State Road 836 (Dolphin Expressway) in the City of Miami. Since the DOT has authority over the sign only if it is located "on" I-95 within the meaning of section 479.07(1), [1] Florida Statutes (1987), see § 479.07(9)(a)1., [2] the dispositive issue is whether that is in fact the case....
...Contrary to the DOT's apparent conclusion that the issue turns on whether the billboard is "adjacent to" or "visible from" I-95, [3] the statutory authority to regulate the sign, since it is inside the limits of the City of Miami, depends entirely on whether it is "on" I-95 as opposed, it follows, to being on SR-836. § 479.07(1), Fla....
...computed according to the number of vehicles directly facing the sign driving on State Road 836, without regard to those who could see the sign only out of the corner of their eyes while traveling on Interstate 95. There is no reason why our view of § 479.07(1) should differ from those in the day-to-day business of dealing with its subject matter....
...BASKIN, Judge (dissenting). Hancock Advertising, Inc., [Hancock] appeals a final order issued by the Department of Transportation [DOT] requiring the removal of Hancock's outdoor advertising sign. I would hold: 1) the sign is on the interstate highway and requires a permit, § 479.07(9)(a)1, Fla....
...t be required. In 1987, Hancock erected the easterly sign facing I-95 without obtaining a permit. DOT issued a notice of violation alleging that the sign did not have the requisite permit and did not comply with statutory spacing requirements. See §§ 479.07(1), 479.07(9)(a)(1), Fla....
...[B]ecause the subject sign is immediately adjacent to Interstate 95, visible from the main-traveled way of Interstate 95 and erected without a permit, the subject sign should be removed... ." Hancock argues that DOT did not prove that the sign was "on an interstate highway," § 479.07(9)(a); that the undefined phrase "on an interstate highway" renders that section unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous; and that the inspector did not properly measure the distance between Hancock's sign and the nearest legal sign....
...Code, Rule 14-10.001(1), 14-10.009; see also T & L Management, Inc. v. Department of Transp., 497 So.2d 685, 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hammond v. Department of Transp., 493 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Florida Dept. of Transp. v. E.T. Legg & Co., 472 So.2d 1336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Further, section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes (1987), provides that "a person may not erect, operate, use or maintain ... any sign ... on any portion of the interstate highway system without first obtaining a permit for the *1091 sign... ." Section 479.07(9)(a)(1), Fla....
...Here, the evidence indicates that the sign was within 660 feet of the right-of-way of the interstate highway. Thus, the direction from which the sign is *1093 intended to be read is not pertinent. See § 479.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1987). Accordingly, I would hold that DOT's interpretation of section 479.07(9)(a)(1) and its application of the law to the facts are not clearly erroneous or in conflict with the legislative intent. Although I agree with the agency that the sign is "on the interstate highway," requires a permit, § 479.07(1), and must comply with the applicable spacing requirements, § 479.07(9)(a)(1), I would not affirm the order. DOT may not grant a permit for the sign unless the sign is located at least 1500 feet from a permitted sign on the same side of the highway. § 479.07(9)(a)(1), Fla....
...Because the agency did not prove that the sign violated the spacing requirements, no reason for denying a permit exists at the present time. For these reasons, I would reverse the order of removal and remand the cause for a determination of the distance between the signs in accordance with the applicable rules. NOTES [1] 479.07 Sign permits....
...The Oxford English Dictionary (1933) gives no fewer than forty-three definitions of the word. Its most common use seems to be the one in the sense of "the book is on the table." Obviously, however, the billboard need not be located "on" I-95 in this respect to come within section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes (1987)....
...s sign. The westerly face is not visible from the main-traveled way of Interstate 95; it faces State Road 836, a federal aid urban highway and thus is not within the DOT's jurisdiction. [2] I disagree with the majority's proposition that our view of section 479.07(9)(a)(1) should follow the construction adopted by the industry....
...Although it is not drawn to scale, it is helpful in understanding the agency's ruling. The diagram labels the sign in question as "face subject of violation east face." [4] In the recommended order, the hearing officer found that the sign face could not be permitted because it violated section 479.07(9)(a)(1)....
Copy

Henderson Signs v. Fla. Dept. of Transp., 397 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19667

...f law. Section 120.57(1)(b)9, Florida Statutes (1979). We reverse and remand to the Department with directions to reinstate the order of the hearing officer. On August 3, 1978, the Department of Transportation filed a notice of violation of Sections 479.07 and 479.11, Florida Statutes, and Rules 14-10.04 and 14-10.05, Florida Administrative Code, directed to Henderson Signs....
...t a place known as Interstate 10 was open to the public for purposes of vehicular travel" on the date of reinspection, May 2, 1979. The hearing officer found this element essential to the violations alleged because the term "highway" appears both in Section 479.07 and in Section 479.11....
...of law. The case is remanded to the Secretary with directions to reinstate the recommended order of the hearing officer as the final order in this case. McCORD and SMITH, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge, (Retired), concur. NOTES [1] Section 479.07, Florida Statutes (1979) provides: "Any person who shall construct, erect, operate, use, or maintain, or cause or permit to be constructed, erected, operated, used, or maintained, any outdoor advertising structure, outdoor advertising...
Copy

Repub. MEDIA v. Dep't of Transp., 714 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Cited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9871, 1998 WL 453856

...The FDOT gave as its reason for the denial the fact that there was another permitted advertising sign on the same side of I-4, a poster panel owned by POA Acquisition, Inc. for which a permit had been issued in 1990, which was closer to Republic's proposed sign than the 1,500 feet required by section 479.07(9)(a)1, Florida Statutes....
...unless such sign is located at least: 1. One thousand five hundred feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of the highway, if on an interstate highway. For various reasons, Republic argues POA's poster sign should not be considered a sign for purpose of section 479.07(9)(a)1, as it did not require a permit in 1990 from FDOT....
...The administrative law judge found that the intent of an advertiser that a sign be directed to and read by traffic on a particular roadway is not determinative of whether a structure meets the statutory definition of a sign, and requires a permit. The judge's order was adopted by FDOT. Republic argues section 479.07(9)(a)1....
...the interstate, albeit drivers would have to turn their heads to read the message. The court held that the sign was not "on" the interstate and thus no permit from FDOT was needed for that sign. However, Hancock was decided when the 1987 version of section 479.07 was controlling....
...of this section, "on any portion of the State Highway System, interstate, or federal-aid primary system "shall mean a sign located within the controlled area which is visible from any portion of the main-traveled way of such system. (emphasis added) 479.07, Fla....
...However, section 479.01(26) defines "visible sign" as meaning: [T]he advertising message or informative contents of a sign, whether or not legible, is capable of being seen without visual aid by a person of normal visual acuity. (emphasis added) We affirm FDOT's interpretation of the statutes. The distance requirement in section 479.07(9)(a) is related to the structures themselves, not the readability of the advertising message....
Copy

Dolphin Outdoor Advert. v. DOT, 582 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 115168

...Dolphin indicated on its application that the nearest sign from its proposed site was 1600 feet away. The DOT sign inspector *710 assigned to Dolphin's application reviewed DOT records to ascertain whether Dolphin's proposed site complied with the statutory spacing requirements. This inspector erroneously thought that section 479.07(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), requires signs along interstate highways to be 1,000 feet apart....
Copy

Wainwright v. State Dept. of Transp., 488 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 938, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7378

...dge of the right of way ... in which there is located one or more commercial activities. " The highlighted term is defined neither by rule or statute. Anyone desiring to erect or maintain a sign on the interstate must first obtain a permit from DOT. Section 479.07(1)....
Copy

LaPointe Outdoor Advert. v. FLA. DEPT., ETC., 398 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1981).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida

...§ 131 (1976), requires 1000-foot spacing between billboards located on federal highways; DOT is charged with enforcing this provision. [2] *1371 DOT thereafter cited LaPointe for violation of section 479.02, erecting a sign within 1000 feet of a permitted sign, and section 479.07(1), erecting a sign without a valid permit, and ordered the billboard's removal....
Copy

Café Erotica v. Florida Dept. of Transp., 830 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15490, 2002 WL 31373490

...Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., appellant, challenges the Department of Transportation's Final Order which concluded that appellant's billboard was not located on the premises of a business and, therefore, required a sign permit pursuant to section 479.07, Florida Statutes (2001). Appellant also argues for the first time on appeal that sections 479.07 and 479.08, Florida Statutes (2001), as well as Florida Administrative Code Rules 14-10.004 and 14-10.006, impose a facially unconstitutional prior restraint on speech in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. We affirm the agency's Final Order without further discussion. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that sections 479.07 and 479.08 and rules 14-10.004 and 14-10.006 do not impose an impermissible prior restraint on speech....
...an entitlement to the on-premises exemption. In its Final Order, the agency adopted the Administrative Law Judge's Recommended Order and directed appellant to remove the outdoor advertising sign. This appeal followed. Appellant argues that sections 479.07 and 479.08 and rules 14-10.004 and 14-10.006 impose a facially unconstitutional prior restraint on speech....
...In contrast, a regulation which imposes a burden on speech without reference to the ideas or viewpoints expressed in the speech is, in a majority of instances, content-neutral. See id. Except for exemptions under sections 479.105(1)(e) [1] and 479.16, Florida Statutes (2001), section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes (2001), requires a permit before erecting any sign on the State Highway System, of which Interstate 95 is a part....
...l governmental official indicating that the sign complies with all local governmental requirements and that the agency or unit of local government will issue a permit to that applicant upon approval of the state permit application by the department. § 479.07(3)(a), (b), Fla....
...The small-business-sign provision of this subsection does not apply to charter counties and may not be implemented if the Federal Government notifies the department that implementation will adversely affect the allocation of federal funds to the department. In addition to section 479.07, Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.004 outlines the procedures for a permit application and issuance....
...n the prior approval of public officials. See Nightclubs, Inc. v. City of Paducah, 202 F.3d 884, 889 (6th Cir.2000) (citing Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975)). Under this definition, sections 479.07 and 479.08 and rules 14-10.004 and 14-10.006 do constitute a prior restraint on speech in the outdoor advertising sign domain....
...int); Fla. Cannabis Action Network, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 130 F.Supp.2d 1358 (M.D.Fla.2001) (stating that ordinance requiring permit for festival was content-based and, therefore, subject to prior restraint analysis). Here, although sections 479.07 and 479.08 and rules 14-10.004 and 14-1.006 are prior restraints on the erection of outdoor advertising signs, the regulations are not impermissible prior restraints on speech....
...533 (1949). Thus, the permitting regulations meet the first criterion. The regulations directly advance these goals by limiting the spacing between billboards and the structural characteristics of such billboards along the State Highway System. See § 479.07, Fla....
...Because the regulations are not broader than necessary, they meet the final Central Hudson criterion. Therefore, the permitting regulations meet the constitutional requirements of Central Hudson to the extent that they regulate commercial speech. Thus, we hold that sections 479.07 and 479.08 and rules 14-10.004 and 14-10.006 do not impose an impermissible prior restraint on speech nor do these regulations improperly restrict commercial speech. Accordingly, sections 479.07 and 479.08 and rules 14-10.004 and 14-10.006 are facially constitutional....
...ucted in 2000. [2] Because appellant's sign does not convey any noncommercial advertising and because appellant does not argue that the regulations improperly affect noncommercial speech, this Court need not address the constitutionality of sections 479.07 and 479.08 as they pertain to noncommercial speech.
Copy

WHITE, ETC. v. State, Dept. of Transp., 368 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...t had expired. The Department, and the hearing examiner, apparently interpreted the notice as allowing White only the right to a § 120.57 hearing to show cause why the sign should not be removed. The record does not show that the notice required by § 479.07(3), [1] Fla....
...rder requiring removal of the sign. NOTES [1] Which provided that on or before November 1 of each year, DOT shall send to each permittee a notice of fees due on all permits. The permittee was given 60 days from receipt of notice to pay the fees due. Section 479.07(3) was amended by Ch....
Copy

Outdoor Advert. Art, Inc. v. Dept. of Transp., 366 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 13946

...State Department of Transportation, Case # II-90; Peterson Outdoor Advertising v. State Department of Transportation, Case # II-88; A.W. Lee v. State Department of Transportation, 366 So.2d 116, and Walker v. State Department of Transportation, 366 So.2d 96. [2] Fla. Stat. § 479.07(2) provides in material part: "......
Copy

Hammond v. Dep't of Transp., 493 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1748, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9300

...ed ordinances. Therefore, this sign being erected in a commercially zoned area, it falls within the above exception to the prohibition contained in Section 479.11(1), Florida Statutes, and thus is legally in place and should be permitted pursuant to Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes......
Copy

La Pointe Outdoor Advert. v. Florida Dept. of Transp., 382 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16109

...Reynolds Sampson, Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for appellee. BERANEK, Judge. La Pointe Outdoor Advertising appeals final agency action by the Department of Transportation ordering removal of its outdoor advertising sign found to violate Sections 479.02 and 479.07(1), Florida Statutes (1977), and denying compensation for its removal....
...a permitted sign, violated Section 479.02, Florida Statutes (1977). The Department of Transportation sent a second violation letter April 24, 1977, advising La Pointe of an additional violation, erecting its sign without a valid permit, contrary to Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes (1977)....
Copy

Henderson Sign Serv. v. Dept. of Transp., 390 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...move nonconforming signs until the end of the fifth year after they have become nonconforming, relying upon Section 479.23, Florida Statutes (1977). The problem with appellants' argument is that none of the signs displayed the permit tag required by Section 479.07(1), and appellants offered no explanation for their failure to affix a tag upon their signs. Section 479.07(4) states: The construction, erection, use or maintenance of any advertising structure, advertising sign or advertisement which is required by this chapter to be permitted, without having affixed thereto a currently valid permanent per...
Copy

White Adver. Int'l v. Fla. Dept. of Transp., 364 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...November 15, 1978. Clifton A. McClelland, Jr., of Nabors, Potter, McClelland & Griffith, Titusville, for appellant. John J. Rimes and H. Reynolds Sampson, Tallahassee, for appellee. ERVIN, Judge. White appeals from DOT's order finding its road sign in violation of § 479.07(1), Fla....
...he use remained non-conforming. The sign had a valid permit issued by DOT. *105 On about June 1, 1977, White changed the message from a Holiday Inn advertisement to a Days Inn advertisement. Subsequently, DOT ordered the sign removed as violative of § 479.07(1) because it had been altered to such an extent that it was in effect a new sign, and its use no longer non-conforming....
Copy

Maverick Media Grp. v. Dept. of Transp., 791 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8774, 2001 WL 708801

...Because we hold that the third-party standing requirements of Agrico are not applicable, and Maverick has standing pursuant to sections 479.08 and 120.52(12)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), to challenge DOT's denial of Maverick's sign permit, we reverse. Section 479.07(9)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1999), states generally that a permit shall not be granted for any sign unless the sign is located at least one thousand feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of the highway....
...Maverick does not only allege that there was false and misleading information in the Texaco sign permit application. Maverick also alleges that the Texaco sign is not on a site that may be permitted by the Department. Therefore, Maverick argues, the Texaco sign permit is void. See § 479.07(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999)("[i]f the permittee fails to erect a completed sign on the permitted site within 270 days after the date on which the permit was issued, the permit will be void"); § 479.07(6), Fla....
...uld prevail in subsequent revocation proceedings concerning *496 the sign. [4] If DOT was unsuccessful in the subsequent revocation, two signs would then exist in close proximity to each other in direct contravention of the restrictions contained in section 479.07(9)(a)(2), Florida Statutes....
...situations. See, e.g., RHS Corp., 736 So.2d. at 1212. The statutory language also does not require DOT to prove the legality of an existing permit. The statute prohibits location of the sign within "one thousand feet from any other permitted sign." § 479.07(9)(a)(2), Fla....
Copy

McDonald's Corp. v. Dept. of Transp., 535 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2663, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5405, 1988 WL 130475

...atutes. A hearing was held. Appellant presented proposed plans evidencing an intent to construct a playground on the sign property. Appellant had not, however, begun construction of the playground. After reviewing the case, the hearing officer held: Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, prohibits the erection of signs on the interstate highway system without a permit; Section 479.105 provides for the removal of signs which require permits and do not have same; and Section 479.02 authorizes the Depar...
...The issue in the instant case is whether appellant's sign is truly an "on premises" sign and, thus, exempt from the permitting requirement. To resolve this issue, we must examine the applicable statutory provisions and the legislative intent behind those statutory provisions. Section 479.07, Florida Statutes (1987), prohibits the erection of signs on the state highway system outside an incorporated area or on any portion of the interstate or federal-aid primary highway system without a permit. Section 479.07(1) provides: Except as provided in s....
Copy

Chancellor Media Whiteco Outdoor Corp. v. Dot, 796 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 826741

...[3] The recommended order concluded that the signs were nonconforming both because they were not on property zoned or otherwise designated for commercial or industrial use, see § 479.111(2), Fla. Stat. (1997), and because they did not meet statutory spacing requirements. See § 479.07(9)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). Located within 660 feet of Interstate 95 (an interstate highway) or U.S. Highway 1 (a federal primary highway), the signs in question are "visible from ... the main-traveled way." § 479.07(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). DOT had not ordered the old signs' removal, however, because they fell within grandfather provisions allowing signs that were legal when erected to remain. See § 479.07(9)(c), Fla....
Copy

Dep't of Transp. v. Durden, 471 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1985).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 317, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3485

...(Supp.1984), constitutional both on their face and as applied to appellees. * *1272 During July and August of 1984, appel-lees illegally constructed outdoor advertising signs adjacent to Interstate 10 without first obtaining the permits required by section 479.07, Florida Statutes (Supp.1984)....
...In August of that same year, the Department of Transportation notified appellees that these signs were in an unpermitted zone, in violation of section 479.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983), and were constructed without the requisite sign permits, in violation of section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1984)....
Copy

Hobbs v. Dep't of Transp., 831 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 16921, 2002 WL 31525281

...ontends that a distinction exists between "renewing" an existing permit and "issuing" a new permit. DOT contends that, "although an existing permit may be renewed for a nonconforming sign, a new permit may not be issued for a nonconforming sign. See § 479.07(8)(a), Fla....
Copy

Patterson Outdoor Advert. v. Dep't of Transp., 651 So. 2d 784 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2264, 1995 WL 92279

...een Blue Heron and Northlake Boulevards. Both applications were denied for failure to include the applicable permit fee with the application, and the 1-95 billboard was denied for the additional reason that it did not meet the spacing requirement of section 479.07(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1993)....
..., Barbara Gun-cheon. Appellant also stated that the billboards “are ‘grandfathered’ in the code.” This was an obvious reply to the DOT’s denial of the permit for the 1-95 billboard on the grounds that it violated the spacing requirement of section 479.07(9). Section 479.07(9)(a)(l) reads: A permit shall not be granted for any sign for which a permit had not been *786 granted by the effective date of this act unless such sign is located at least: 1. One thousand five hundred feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of the highway, if on an interstate highway. Also, section 479.07(9)(c) states that “[n]oth-ing in this subsection shall be construed so as to cause a sign which is conforming on the effective date of this act to become nonconforming.” The effective date of the act was October 1, 1984....
...It made findings concerning the actions and correspondence of the parties since the date the DOT notified appellant of its intent to deny the applications. It found that neither of the applications contained the applicable fee, and that the 1-95 billboard was in violation of section 479.07(9)(a)(l)....
...t been a permit issued for it prior to October 1,1984. Hence, there was a material fact disputed by appellant such that it should have been granted a formal hearing. In addition to finding that the 1-95 billboard violated the spacing requirements of section 479.07(9), the DOT also found that appellant had not paid its application fees. However, there is no indication that the DOT followed its statutorily proscribed procedures in this ease. Pursuant to section 479.07(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), the DOT must send each permittee, in November of each year, a notice of fees due. Under section 479.07(8)(b): If a permittee has not submitted [its] fee payment by January 15, the department shall, no later than February 1, send a notice of violation to the permittee, requiring the payment of the permit fee within 30 days after the date...
...State of Florida Dep’t of Transp., 368 So.2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (Judge Ervin, concurring in part and dissenting in part). In Judge Ervin’s opinion, he concurred with the reversal in the ease on the grounds that the sign owner had not received proper notice under section 479.07(3), Florida Statutes (1975)....
...ion fees. If it is determined that the DOT did not follow the proper procedure, or that actions by the DOT prevented appellant from paying the fees, appellant should be given an opportunity to pay the required fees (plus the late charge) pursuant to section 479.07(8)(b)....
Copy

Peterson Outdoor Advert. v. Dep't of Transp., 369 So. 2d 94 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14767

that Peterson received that notice required by § 479.07(3), Fla.Stat. (1975). I otherwise dissent for
Copy

Lamar Advert. Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 490 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1424, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8578

of Florida, and replaced in substance with Section 479.07(7), Florida Statutes (Supp.1984), which provides:
Copy

Empire Outdoor Advert. v. Dep't of Transp., 438 So. 2d 851 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19964

...limits until January 1, 1975. However, Empire failed to obtain permits for either set of signs on or after January 1, 1975. On May 11, 1981 the DOT served Empire with “notices of violation” on both sets of signs. The notices charged violation of § 479.07(1), Fla....
...Empire promptly filed permit applications with the DOT, which were rejected because during the time Empire had failed to get permits, other signs had been permitted and erected at locations that rendered it impossible for Empire’s signs to meet the spacing requirement. Section 479.07 requires that Empire’s signs have permits and if not permitted they were illegal....
Copy

Atl. Outdoor Advert. v. Dep't of Transp., 518 So. 2d 384 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 100, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11848, 1987 WL 31971

...te not charged against it; 3) whether the department adhered to its rules in measuring the distance between appellant’s sign and the Naegele sign; 4) whether appellant’s sign violates section 479.11(1); and 5) whether appellant’s sign violates section 479.07(9)(a)2....
...We affirm as to all other issues raised. The Department notified appellant that its sign, located adjacent to Southside Boulevard approximately 346 feet from the intersection of Southside and Atlantic boulevards in Jacksonville, was in violation of section 479.07(1) because it had not been properly permitted, and obtained a stop work order to halt construction of the sign. Appellant requested an administrative hearing. Following issuance of a notice of hearing, appellee filed a motion for order clarifying issues, specifically alleging that appellant’s sign violated section 479.07(1), requiring a state permit, and section 479.-07(9)(a)2, which provides for spacing requirements between signs located on federal-aid primary highways....
...on the same side of the road as the validly permitted Naegele sign, and that appellant, although having properly obtained a permit from the City of Jacksonville, had failed to obtain a state sign permit. The hearing officer concluded on the basis of section 479.07(9)(a)2, which prohibits issuance of a permit for any sign not permitted by July 1, 1984, unless the sign is located at least 1000 feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of a federal-aid primary highway, that a state sign p...
...The agency did not find appellant in violation of section 479.11(1). Instead, the location of appellant’s sign within 660 feet of the federal-aid primary highway provided a predicate, under that statute, for the agency’s determination that appellant’s sign *386 was in violation of sections 479.07(1) and 479.07(9)(a)2....
...However, the Department did not find appellant in violation of section 479.11(1), and this exception would not apply. Even if appellant were able to show that its sign qualified for the exception, it would have been required to have a permit for the sign under section 479.07(1), and the Department still would have been able to find the sign ineligible for a permit under the section 479.07(9)(a)2 spacing requirement....
...Once the Department established that appellant’s sign was “on” a federal-aid primary highway, whether appellant qualified for the section 479.111(2) exception was irrelevant to its ineligibility for a permit under the spacing requirements of section 479.07(9)(a)2, and to the section 479.07(1) requiremient that a sign erected on any portion of the federal-aid primary highway must have a permit....
Copy

Young Sign Co. v. Macchione, 378 So. 2d 823 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15969

OTT, Judge. The question here, for which we find no answer in the reported decisions, is whether Chapter 479, Florida Statutes 1 , requires a new permit each time a new party gets involved with an outdoor billboard. We conclude that Section 479.07 requires only one annual permit for each billboard, which sanctions its use (for the license year) by the permittee or any otherwise lawful user....
...n the permit required by Section 479.-07 rendered the contract illegal and unenforceable under Section 479.18. We do not agree. Chapter 479 manifests a legislative intent to control the size, location and density of outdoor advertising. To that end, Section 479.07 requires a permit for each sign erected....
Copy

Lee v. State Dep't of Transp., 596 So. 2d 802 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4257, 1992 WL 69052

...der Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1989). He therefore concluded that the signs had lost their nonconforming status by being void of advertising for 12 months or longer, and because the signs violated the 1500-foot spacing requirement provided in Section 479.07(9)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (1989), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.-006(l)(b)(4), they were therefore illegal, and appellant was required to remove the signs in accordance with Section 479.105, Florida Statutes (1989)....

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.