CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...The above legislation was reintroduced at the special session convening June 1, 1971 *164 and adjourning, June 24, 1971, by H.B. 27-C and S.B. 44-C. The House bill had a proposed effective date of July 1, 1971. In addition to containing the language previously quoted in H.B. 2522, H.B. 27-C proposed adding Section 479.25 to read: "All nonconforming outdoor signs erected after the effective date of this act shall be erected at the owners [sic] peril and said owner shall bear the costs of removal." This language no doubt was designed to clarify the legis...
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 5744443, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 16981
OSTERHAUS, J. In this case, we must decide whether the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) properly dismissed a petition for administrative hearing filed by the appellant billboard sign owners who sought process and redress under § 479.25(1), Florida Statutes (2012)....
...signs from the interstate. Under Florida law, when signs become screened or blocked due to the construction of a sound barrier, the owners of some types of signs may raise the height of their signs or receive other statutorily provided remedies. See §
479.25, Fla.' Stat. Appellants believe that their signs comport with §
479.25 and must receive the process and remedies available under this law. They demanded agency action from FDOT along this line, but FDOT denied their request. FDOT’s view was that the process provided in §
479.25 did not apply to Appellants’ signs because they do not conform with certain state and federal sign requirements-they are’ “nonconforming” signs. Appellants sought an administrative hearing pursuant to §
120.57, Florida Statutes, to review FDOT’s denial of their demand for agency action under §
479.25, but FDOT dismissed the petition on standing grounds because of its view that nonconforming signs fall outside of §
479.25’s regime....
...Dep’t of Ins.,
454 So.2d 31, 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)) (“[O]ur review standard over an agency’s interpretation of law is that of clearly erroneous, meaning the interpretation will be upheld if the agency’s construction falls within the permissible range of interpretations.”). Section
479.25(1) establishes which sign owners can receive redress when the visibility of a sign is screened or blocked due to the construction of a sound barrier....
...ify the department. [6] When notice has been received from the local government or local jurisdiction prior to erection of the noise-attenuation barrier, the department shall: [follow various procedures leading to a remedy for affected sign owners]. § 479.25(1), Fla....
...A sign must fall within the class of signs “lawfully erected,” “conform[ing] to state and federal requirements,” and “lawfully permitted” in order to qualify for the process and benefits available under this statute. Appellants argue that § 479.25 affords remedies to owners of conforming and nonconforming signs alike. But three sentences in § 479.25(1) — sentences 1, 4, and 5 marked above — demonstrate that their signs do not qualify for benefits and process under the statute. Sentence 1 of § 479.25(1), says rather clearly that the owner of a sign may increase its height if the sign “conforms to [certain] state and federal requirements.” Id....
...This excludes Appellants’ signs which are nonconforming for purposes of sentence l. 1 As such, we *387 conclude that FDOT correctly dismissed Appellants’ petition below because their nonconforming signs cannot qualify for the benefits and process afforded under § 479.25. 2 Appellants additionally assert alternative constitutional arguments that the exclusion of their nonconforming signs from § 479.25’s benefits violates due process, equal protection, and private property rights. We don’t think so. First, Appellants’ due process and equal protection arguments must fail because FDOT has offered a rational, non-arbitrary reason for excluding nonconforming signs from redress under § 479.25: federal funding....
...(emphasis added)), Appellants in this case have not claimed that FDOT has “removed” their nonconforming signs, but only affected their visibility. III. In conclusion, we affirm FDOT’s order of dismissal because Appellants’ nonconforming signs are not entitled to the process and remedies provided for in § 479.25, Florida Statutes....
...signs finds support in FDOT’s own interpretation of the law that it is charged with administering. See, e.g., §
479.02, Fla. Stat. (assigning FDOT with responsibility for regulating signs and enforcing federal sign requirements). FDOT interprets §
479.25 to exclude a broader set of nonconforming signs from the scheme (see §
479.01(17), Fla....
