CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14026
...I agree also that the Department should compensate Mr. Walker for the I-75 sign that the Department took down sometime in 1977, thus treating it as removed for its nonconformance to 1971 statutes implementing the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Sections
479.11,
479.24, Florida Statutes (1977); Sections 14-10.19 et seq., Fla....
...If that sign is still intact and can be replaced, I would allow the Department the alternative of restoring Mr. Walker to his previous position, upon his tender of fees past due, by paying to replace the sign, which would remain subject to removal, upon payment of compensation, for its nonconformance to Section 479.11, implementing the Highway Beautification Act....
...orthwith," was proper under the law and Department rules as they then existed. Most of Mr. Walker's signs were not located on federal aid highways to which the Highway Beautification Act applied and they were not within 15 feet of any state highway. Section 479.11....
...e was no countervailing authority in the Department to treat the signs as new and to reinstate their expired permits. In 1971 Mr. Walker's three signs were lawfully nonconforming to the 660-foot setback requirement of the Highway Beautification Act, Section
479.11, because the 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....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2285, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5309, 1989 WL 110924
...the sign to be read by travelers on State Road 836. In addition, the sign within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right of way of the interstate highway system is on a DOT-controlled portion of the interstate highway system, as set forth in section 479.11(1)....
...Hancock's intentions are irrelevant to the evaluation of DOT's regulatory jurisdiction. The purpose for which the sign is erected is a statutory consideration only if the sign is beyond 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of any portion of the interstate highway system. § 479.11(2), Fla. Stat. (1987). 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....
...§
479.02(2), Fla. Stat. (1987). Application of industry criteria circumvents the chapter's express purpose. The statute specifically addresses circumstances where the agency must consider the sign company's criteria in determining the sign location. Section
479.11(2) provides that "No sign shall be erected ......
...beyond 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of any portion of an interstate highway system ... which sign is erected for the purpose of its message being read from the main-traveled way" of the controlled highway. (Emphasis supplied.) However, section 479.11(1) which prohibits signs such as the subject sign within 660 feet of the right-of-way of a controlled highway, does not include the underlined provision....
...sign "only out of the corner of their eye while traveling on Interstate 95", at 1089, directly contradicts the intention of the legislature to consider the road from which the sign is intended to be read only under the circumstances set forth in section 479.11(2)....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19667
...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....
...erstate 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....
...d, any outdoor advertising structure, outdoor advertising sign, or outdoor advertisement along any federal aid primary highway or interstate highway within any incorporated city or town shall apply for a permit on a form provided by the department." Section 479.11, Florida Statutes (1979) provides: "No advertisement, advertising sign or advertising structure shall be constructed, erected, used, operated or maintained: (1) Within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of all portions of the interstate system or the federal-aid primary system except as provided in S.479.111, or within 15 feet of the outside boundary of any other federal or state highway......
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 938, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7378
...ke provisions "for effective control of the erection and maintenance... of outdoor advertising signs ... which are within six hundred and sixty (660) feet of the nearest edge of the right of way and visible from the main travelled way." To that end, Section 479.11(1), Florida Statutes, provides that "no sign shall be erected, used, operated, or maintained within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of any portion of the interstate highway system ..." except in commercial unzoned areas. Section 479.111(2)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1548
...In 1972, the State agreed to make provisions for effective control of the erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs which are within six hundred and sixty (660) feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way and visible from the maintraveled way. To that end, Section 479.11(1) provides that no sign shall be erected in this area except in zoned or unzoned commercial areas....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2204
...it. He therefore concluded that the permit could not be revoked. DOT revoked all three permits and ordered removal of the signs. Appellant argues that the doctrine of equitable estoppel should apply under the circumstances of this case. We disagree. Section 479.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983), prohibits outdoor advertising "[w]ithin 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of all portions of the interstate system or the federal-aid primary system except as provided in s. 479.111, ... ." Signs in agriculturally-zoned areas are not one of the exceptions set out in section 479.111....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15490, 2002 WL 31373490
...the principal or accessory merchandise, services, activities, or entertainment sold, produced, manufactured, or furnished on the premises of the establishment and which comply with the lighting restrictions under department rule adopted pursuant to s. 479.11(5), or signs owned by a municipality or a county located on the premises of such municipality or such county which display information regarding government services, activities, events, or entertainment....
...illboards and the structural characteristics of such billboards along the State Highway System. See §
479.07, Fla. Stat. The regulations also advance these goals by prohibiting signs which may intentionally distract or confuse travelers. See, e.g., §
479.11(5), Fla. Stat. (2001) (prohibiting signs displaying rotating or flashing lights in such a manner as to cause glare or to impair motorists' vision); §
479.11(6), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1748, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9300
...The weight of the evidence in the record in this case establishes that the commercial zone where the subject sign is located is properly zoned pursuant to properly enacted zoned 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......
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...djacent to an interstate highway are in violation of Section 479.17, Florida Statutes (1977). The evidence as to the location of all three signs was essentially the same: All were well within the area prohibited by the 600-foot setback provisions of Section 479.11, Florida Statutes (1977), and none displayed permit tags....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...White appeals from DOT's order finding its road sign in violation of §
479.07(1), Fla. Stat. (1977). In 1969, White built a sign about 18 feet from the nearest right-of-way of I-95 in Nassau County. The sign was lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971, even though violative of §
479.11(2), because located within 660 feet of a portion of the interstate system, the sign was grandfathered in under §§ 479.23 and
479.24 and allowed to remain in place as long as the use remained non-conforming....
...ay Inn sign. Twenty-two new four-by-six vertical boards were placed behind the new sign face. The vertical boards cost $165.00; labor, $179.00; the new sign facing, $970.00. The hearing officer concluded that White had erected a sign in violation of § 479.11, Fla. Stat. (1977), because the alterations were too extensive to be either "customary, maintenance or repair" of the existing sign or alterations incidental to a change in the sign's advertising message. Section 479.11(1) provides that no outdoor advertising sign "shall be constructed, erected, used, operated ......
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Since the restrictions imposed on billboards in chapter 14-10 of the Administrative Code mirror those in chapter 479, Florida Statutes, we will address the restrictions as set out by the legislature. Chapter 479 imposes the following restrictions, among others, on billboards: 479.11 Certain outdoor advertising prohibited....
... No advertisement, advertising sign or advertising structure shall be constructed, erected, used, operated or maintained: (1) Within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of all portions of the interstate system or the federal-aid primary system except as provided in s. 479.111, or within 15 feet of the outside boundary of any other federal or state highway or within 100 feet of any church, school, cemetery, public park, public reservation, public playground, state or national forest, or railroad intersection outside the limits of any incorporated city or town....
...is without merit. The word "inconsistent", as used in § 6(f) of Article VIII means contradictory in the sense of legislative provisions which cannot co-exist and the same should be true of the word "conflict" in § 11(5). And it cannot be said that § 479.11(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and Dade County Ordinance No....
...dvertising structure which is prohibited by any other public board, officer or agency in the lawful exercise of its or their powers. (Emphasis added.) The legislature clearly intended to permit restrictions on billboards more stringent than those in section 479.11....
...f these signs on grounds other than aesthetics, primarily highway safety. In Hav-A-Tampa Cigar Co. v. Johnson,
149 Fla. 148,
5 So.2d 533 (1941), our supreme court upheld a state statute regulating billboards in order to enhance highway safety. See §§
479.11,.16, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1757, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9260
...This is another in the recent series of appeals from Department of Transportation orders on outdoor advertising. The final order here in question revoked permits issued in 1981 and ordered removal of the signs for violation of sections
479.01(10)(f) and
479.11, Florida Statutes....
...Because we reverse for failure to establish grounds for revocation under section
479.08, Florida Statutes, we need not consider the applicability of alternative provisions in the statutory scheme. Reversed. NIMMONS, J., and WILLIS, Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Section
479.11, Florida Statutes (1981), provides in part: No ... advertising sign ... shall be constructed, erected, used, operated or maintained: (1) within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of all portions of the interstate system or the federal-aid primary system except as provided in s.
479.111.... Section
479.111, Florida Statutes (1981), provides in part: Only the following signs shall be permitted ...: (2) Signs in ......
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 317, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3485
...nterstate 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)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17074
SMITH, Judge. A signowner petitions for review of a Department of Transportation order adopting the proposed order of a hearing officer and finding that petitioner’s signs adjacent to an interstate highway are in violation of Section
479.11(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1975). The signs were ordered removed. Petitioner contended before the hearing officer and here that his signs, which advertise the sale of pecans at a stand on a nearby intersecting highway, were excepted from the proscription of Section
479.11(1) and (2) by Section
479.16(2), which permits signs ....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15109
statutory provision regulating lighting is Section
479.11, which prohibits erection of any sign which
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1576, 1990 WL 25960
...e pole and the park, including measuring by straight sight distance, by the county right of way, or by the state right of way, and that each method would yield a different result. DOT’s outdoor advertising supervisor testified that for purposes of section 479.11(4), the department measures distances from the nearest point of the sign to the boundary of the public park property....
...ch it measures the distance between a sign and a state park boundary, subsequent to issuance of the revoked permits. According to DOT, Lamar introduced no testimony from anyone in the department that the DOT ever employed the right of way method for section 479.11(4) measurements. The applicable statute, section 479.11(4), Florida Statutes (1987), provides in pertinent part: No sign shall be erected, used, operated, or maintained: [[Image here]] (4) Within 100 feet of any church, school, cemetery, public park, public reservation, public playground, o...
...oad from which passing motorists will read the sign. The department offered no rebuttal to Mr. Grimsley’s testimony. Furthermore, the testimony of DOT personnel concerning the department’s method of measuring for sign placement in the context of section 479.11(4) pertained to the department’s present method of measurement, and not the method employed in 1985 when the subject sign permits were issued....
...Apparently in 1985 DOT employed a different method of measurement, because otherwise the contested permits would not have been issued. Concomitantly, the legal conclusion that DOT had not interpreted the statute when the original permits were issued is not supported by either the record or the statute. Since section 479.11(4) does not prescribe a methodology for determining placement of a sign in the area of a public park, DOT was required to interpret the provision in 1985 before it issued the contested permits....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12145
...In September 1981, appellants, Best Western Tivoli Inn and Simms Enterprises, Inc., applied to appellee, the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT), to receive permits for billboards located within one mile of the intersection of Interstate 10 and State Road 79 in Holmes County. Section 479.11, Florida Statutes (1981), generally prohibits billboards within the area in which appellants’ billboards are located; however, since the area in question is zoned commercial by Holmes County, appellants relied upon the statutory exception for billboards located within commercially zoned areas....
...commercial zoning was created primarily to permit outdoor advertising. 2 It took the legal position that rule 14-10.05(6) was intended to mean that zoning created primarily to permit outdoor advertising would not qualify as an exception pursuant to section 479.111, Florida Statutes, even if it was validly adopted as a part of comprehensive zoning....
...ng the first part of the test in rule 14-10.-05(6). He then concluded that a plain reading of the rule indicated a two-part test whereby commercial zoning validly adopted as a part of comprehensive zoning would qualify for the statutory exception in section 479.111, even though created primarily to permit outdoor advertising....
...bition against signs. DOT then made its own finding that the evidence in the record proved that Holmes County's zoning ordinance was created primarily to permit outdoor advertising, and for this reason, it did not qualify as an exception pursuant to section 479.111....
...nd for a fact finding proceeding to determine whether the commercial zoning at issue was “created primarily to permit outdoor advertising structures.” REVERSED and REMANDED. WENTWORTH, J., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associated Judge, concur. . Section 479.111, Florida Statutes (1981), which reads in part as follows: Only the following signs shall be permitted within controlled positions of the interstate and federal-aid primary systems: (2) Signs in commercial and industrial zoned or commercial and industrial unzoned areas subject to agreement established by s....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 13947
...has not seen fit to do so. *117 This case is to be distinguished from the Court’s decision in White Advertising v. DOT,
364 So.2d 104 (1978), where in this Court affirmed removal of a sign found to have been erected in violation of Florida Statute §
479.11 4 by virtue of extensive alterations making the structure in effect a new sign....
...ted structural material, so long as the cost to replace new the deteriorated structural material does not exceed 5% of the depreciated value of the sign.” . “Specific Authority
20.05(5),
120.53(1), 334.-02(6) F.S. Law Implemented
479.02,
479.05,
479.11,
479.10 and
479.16 F.S., Agreement between Governor and U. S. Department of Transportation.” . Fla.Stat. §
479.11(1): “No advertisement, advertising sign or advertising structure shall be constructed, erected, used, operated or maintained: (1) Within 600 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of all portions of the interstate system or the fede...
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18167
PER CURIAM. The Department’s order directing the removal of appellant’s signboard near Interstate Highway 10 in Jackson County is AFFIRMED. Section 479.11, Florida Statutes (1979); Henderson Sign Service v....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 100, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11848, 1987 WL 31971
...whether appellant was improperly found in violation of a statute 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....
...sed by the Florida Department of Transportation. Evidence produced at the hearing showed that Atlantic Boulevard has been designated as a federal-aid primary highway since at least 1984, when the Federal Highway Administration last approved the map. Section
479.11(1) provides: No sign shall be erected, used, operated or maintained: 1) within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of any portion of the interstate highway system or the federal-aid primary highway system, except as provided in ss.
479.111 and
479.16. 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. The agency made reference to section
479.11(1) only to establish its jurisdictional and regulatory control of the area in which appellant’s sign was located, and to establish that appellant’s sign was “on” a federal-aid primary highway....
...An agency’s construction of a statute it administers is entitled to great weight and is not to be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Barker v. Board of Medical Examiners,
428 So.2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The agency was entitled to define “on” a federal-aid primary highway by reference to the spacing requirement of section
479.11(1). Appellant contends that because its sign was located in an area zoned as commercial intensive, section
479.111(2), an exception to
479.11(1), should apply. Section
479.111(2) provides that signs in commercial-zoned areas and within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of a federal primary highway are allowed, subject to requirements of an agreement between the state and the United States Department of Transportation....
...are on the same side of the highway and facing the same direction. Appellant asserts that its sign and the Naegele sign are not facing the same direction, and this section should apply. However, the Department did not find appellant in violation of section 479.11(1), and this exception would not apply....
...ould 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....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 70, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11036
...the permit because Chipley acted in reliance on the representations of DOT personnel. In October 1984, DOT notified Chipley Motel that its sign located on the south side of I — 10, 1.4 miles west of SR 77 in Washington County, was in violation of section 479.11, Florida Statutes (1983), and rule 14-10.05(1), Florida Administrative Code....
...Chipley Motel then constructed an outdoor advertising sign at the location in conformance with the permit, and it has paid all permit renewal fees since 1979. After DOT served notice on appellant in 1984 that the sign was being maintained in violation of section
479.11 because the site was not zoned commercial or industrial and commenced these proceedings to revoke the permit, Chipley requested and was granted a formal administrative hearing pursuant to section
120.57(1)....
...the site was not now and never had been zoned commercial or industrial; nor was there any commercial or industrial activity within 800 feet of the subject sign’s location which would qualify the site as an unzoned commercial or industrial area. §§ 479.11 and 479.111, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16549
right-of-way of Interstate 10, in violation of Section
479.11, Florida Statutes (1975). Petitioner relies
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20978
...National Advertising Company appeals a final order of Department of Transportation (DOT) ordering removal of its signs with no compensation. National Advertising Company contends that DOT had the burden of proving not only that there was a violation of Section 479.11(1), Florida Statutes (1981), but also that the advertising structures did not fall within the exception provided in Section 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (1981), and that *1143 since the support poles for the signs were set in concrete prior to 8 December 1971, the signs were lawfully in existence on that date, thus compensation is due. We agree that DOT had the burden of proving a violation of Section 479.11(1), disagree with the other contentions, and affirm....
...National Advertising, the owner of two outdoor signs located in Duval County, was cited by DOT for violation of Section 479.-11(1). The parties stipulated that both signs were within 660 feet of the right-of-way of 1-95. However, National Advertising contends that these signs fell within the statutory exception of Section 479.111(2)....
...DOT,
390 So.2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), that the burden of proving entitlement to any of the exceptions of Chapter 479 is upon the one claiming the exception. Therefore, National Advertising had the burden of proving it fell within the exception of Section
479.111(2)....
