479.02
Duties of the department.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
479.02 Duties of the department.—The department shall:
(1) Administer and enforce this chapter, the 1972 agreement between the state and the United States Department of Transportation, Title 23 of the United States Code, and federal regulations, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the maintenance, continuance, and removal of nonconforming signs.
(2) Regulate size, height, lighting, and spacing of signs permitted on commercial and industrial parcels and in unzoned commercial or industrial areas on the interstate highway system and the federal-aid primary highway system.
(3) Determine commercial and industrial parcels and unzoned commercial or industrial areas in the manner provided in s. 479.024.
(4) Implement a specific information panel program on the limited access highway system to promote tourist-oriented businesses by providing directional information safely and aesthetically.
(5) Implement a rest area information panel or devices program at rest areas along the interstate highway system and the federal-aid primary highway system to promote tourist-oriented businesses.
(6) Test and, if economically feasible, implement alternative methods of providing information in the specific interest of the traveling public which allow the traveling public freedom of choice, conserve natural beauty, and present information safely and aesthetically.
(7) Adopt such rules as the department deems necessary or proper for the administration of this chapter, including rules that identify activities that may not be recognized as industrial or commercial activities for purposes of determination of a commercial or industrial parcel or an unzoned commercial or industrial area in the manner provided in s. 479.024.
(8) Inventory and determine the location of all signs on the state highway system, interstate highway system, and federal-aid primary highway system to be used as the database and permit information for all permitted signs. The inventory shall be updated at least every 2 years. The department may perform the inventory using department staff or may contract with a private firm to perform the work, whichever is more cost-efficient. The department shall maintain a database of sign inventory information such as sign location, size, height, and structure type, the permittee’s name, and any other information the department finds necessary to administer the program.
History.—s. 2, ch. 20446, 1941; s. 5, ch. 67-461; ss. 23, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 2, ch. 71-971; s. 1, ch. 72-274; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; s. 2, ch. 78-8; s. 134, ch. 79-164; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 3, 25, 26, ch. 84-227; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 33, ch. 94-237; s. 1, ch. 96-201; s. 4, ch. 2014-215; s. 25, ch. 2014-223.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1977–2013 · leading case: Lamar Outdoor Advertising-Llakeland v. Florida Department of Transportation
Lamar Outdoor Advertising-Llakeland v. Florida Department of Transportation (2009)
“02(1) makes it “the duty of the department to:” Administer and enforce the provisions of this chapter and the agreement between the state and the United States Department of Transportation relating to the size, lighting, and spacing of signs in accordance with Title I of the…”
Brazil v. Division of Administration, State Department of Transportation (1977)
“Section 479.02, Florida Statutes (1971), authorized the governor to execute an agreement with the appropriate agents of the United States to carry out the purposes of the Highway Beautification Act.”
LaPointe Outdoor Advertising v. FLA. DEPT., ETC. (1981)
“[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.”
Hancock Advertising v. Dept. of Transp. (1989)
“§ 479.02(2), Fla. Stat. (1987); see Fla. Admin.”
Café Erotica v. Florida Dept. of Transp. (2002)
“The Florida Legislature has stated that the control of signs adjacent to state highways are necessary: to protect the public investment in the state highways; to attract visitors to this state by conserving the natural beauty of the state; to preserve and promote the…”
La Pointe Outdoor Advertising v. Florida Dept. of Transp. (1980)
“On March 24, 1977, the Department of Transportation sent La Pointe a letter advising it that its sign, located within 1000 feet of a permitted sign, violated Section 479.02, Florida Statutes (1977). The Department of Transportation sent a second violation letter April 24, 1977,…”
Brazil v. DIV. OF ADMIN., STATE DOT (1977)
“Section 479.02, Florida Statutes (1971), authorized the governor to execute an agreement with the appropriate agents of the United States to carry out the purposes of the Highway Beautification Act.”
Abbott Laboratories v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2009)
“1st DCA 1977) (holding that it would be permissible for DOT to remove a sign which violated the spacing requirement which was part of the federal regulations when section 479.02, containing the phrase “subject to current federal regulations,” became effective, but it would be…”
Chancellor Media Whiteco Outdoor Corporation v. Dot (2001)
“Pursuant to section 479.02(1), Florida Statutes, administration and enforcement of the agreement have been delegated to the appellee, and the appellee has adopted rules consistent with this responsibility.”
Hammond v. Department of Transp. (1986)
“But section 479.02(2), Florida Statutes, expressly directs DOT to regulate advertising signs along the interstate highway system without limitation as to the location of such highways.”
McDonald's Corp. v. Dept. of Transp. (1988)
“105 provides for the removal of signs which require permits and do not have same; and Section 479.02 authorizes the Department of Transportation to regulate the spacing of signs on the interstate system.”
Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Dept. of Transp. (1986)
“Section 479.02(3) requires DOT to "determine unzoned commercial areas and unzoned industrial areas" when that is the basis for an application.”
— 479.02(1) — 5 cases
Lamar Outdoor Advertising-Llakeland v. Florida Department of Transportation (2009)
“02(1) makes it “the duty of the department to:” Administer and enforce the provisions of this chapter and the agreement between the state and the United States Department of Transportation relating to the size, lighting, and spacing of signs in accordance with Title I of the…”
Café Erotica v. Florida Dept. of Transp. (2002)
“The Florida Legislature has stated that the control of signs adjacent to state highways are necessary: to protect the public investment in the state highways; to attract visitors to this state by conserving the natural beauty of the state; to preserve and promote the…”
LaPointe Outdoor Advertising v. FLA. DEPT., ETC. (1981)
“[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.”
Chancellor Media Whiteco Outdoor Corporation v. Dot (2001)
“Pursuant to section 479.02(1), Florida Statutes, administration and enforcement of the agreement have been delegated to the appellee, and the appellee has adopted rules consistent with this responsibility.”
McDonald's Corp. v. Dept. of Transp. (1988)
“105 provides for the removal of signs which require permits and do not have same; and Section 479.02 authorizes the Department of Transportation to regulate the spacing of signs on the interstate system.”
— 479.02(2) — 2 cases
Hancock Advertising v. Dept. of Transp. (1989)
“§ 479.02(2), Fla. Stat. (1987); see Fla. Admin.”
Hammond v. Department of Transp. (1986)
“But section 479.02(2), Florida Statutes, expressly directs DOT to regulate advertising signs along the interstate highway system without limitation as to the location of such highways.”
— 479.02(3) — 1 case
Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Dept. of Transp. (1986)
“Section 479.02(3) requires DOT to "determine unzoned commercial areas and unzoned industrial areas" when that is the basis for an application.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.