479.15
Harmony of regulations.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
479.15 Harmony of regulations.—
(1) A zoning board or commission or other public officer or agency may not issue a permit to erect a sign that is prohibited under this chapter or the rules of the department, and the department may not issue a permit for a sign that is prohibited by any other public board, officer, or agency in the lawful exercise of its powers.
(2) A municipality, county, local zoning authority, or other local governmental entity may not remove, or cause to be removed, a lawfully erected sign along any portion of the interstate or federal-aid primary highway system without first paying just compensation for such removal. A local governmental entity may not cause in any way the alteration of a lawfully erected sign located along any portion of the interstate or federal-aid primary highway system without payment of just compensation if such alteration constitutes a taking under state law. The municipality, county, local zoning authority, or other local governmental entity that adopts requirements for such alteration shall pay just compensation to the sign owner if such alteration constitutes a taking under state law. This subsection applies only to a lawfully erected sign the subject matter of which relates to premises other than the premises on which it is located or to merchandise, services, activities, or entertainment not sold, produced, manufactured, or furnished on the premises on which the sign is located. This subsection may not be interpreted as explicit or implicit legislative recognition that alterations do or do not constitute a taking under state law.
(3) It is the express intent of the Legislature to limit the state right-of-way acquisition costs on state and federal roads in eminent domain proceedings, ss. 479.07 and 479.155 notwithstanding. Subject to approval by the Federal Highway Administration, if public acquisition of land upon which is situated a lawfully permitted sign occurs as provided in this chapter, the sign may, at the election of its owner and the department, be relocated or reconstructed adjacent to the new right-of-way and in close proximity to the current site if the sign is not relocated in an area inconsistent with s. 479.024. Such relocation is subject to the requirements in the 1972 agreement between the state and the United States Department of Transportation. The sign owner shall pay all costs associated with relocating or reconstructing a sign under this subsection, and the state or any local government may not reimburse the sign owner for such costs, unless part of such relocation costs is required by federal law. If adjacent property is not available for the relocation, the department is responsible for paying the owner of the sign just compensation for its removal.
(4) For a nonconforming sign, the face of the sign may not be increased in size or height or structurally modified at the point of relocation in a manner inconsistent with the current building codes of the jurisdiction in which the sign is located.
(5) If relocation can be accomplished but is inconsistent with the ordinances of the municipality or county within whose jurisdiction the sign is located, the ordinances of the local government shall prevail if the local government assumes the responsibility to provide the owner of the sign just compensation for its removal. Compensation paid by the local government may not be greater than the compensation required under state or federal law. This section does not impair any agreement or future agreements between a municipality or county and the owner of a sign or signs within the jurisdiction of the municipality or county.
(6) Subsections (3), (4), and (5) do not apply within the jurisdiction of a municipality that is engaged in litigation concerning its sign ordinance on April 23, 1999, and the subsections do not apply to a municipality whose boundaries are identical to the county within which the municipality is located.
(7) This section does not cause a neighboring sign that is already permitted and that is within the spacing requirements established in s. 479.07(9)(a) to become nonconforming.
History.—s. 13, ch. 20446, 1941; s. 5, ch. 67-461; ss. 23, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 1, ch. 74-273; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 15, 25, 26, ch. 84-227; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 41, ch. 94-237; s. 65, ch. 99-385; s. 5, ch. 2002-13; s. 16, ch. 2014-215; s. 37, ch. 2014-223.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1976–1988 · leading case: LAMAR-ORLANDO, ETC. v. City of Ormond Beach
LAMAR-ORLANDO, ETC. v. City of Ormond Beach (1982)
“Section 479.15(1) provides: *1321 No zoning board or commission nor any other public officer or agency shall permit any advertisement or advertising structure which is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter.”
City of Lake Wales v. LAMAR ADVER. (1981)
“Section 479.15, supra, clearly indicates that Chapter 479 was designed to establish minimum regulations for the outdoor advertising business and does not prevent, but rather leaves the way open and encourages stricter regulations by other governmental agencies in the lawful…”
T & L MANAGEMENT v. Dept. of Transp. (1986)
“Appellant also contends in all six cases that it is entitled to just compensation pursuant to Section 479.15(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.”
La Pointe Outdoor Advertising v. Florida Dept. of Transp. (1980)
“Section 479.15(1), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: "no zoning board or commission nor any other public officer or agency shall permit any advertisement or advertising structure which is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter.”
Scavella v. Fernandez (1979)
“2d 1150 : "Section 479.15, supra, clearly indicates that Chapter 479 was designed to establish minimum regulations for the outdoor advertising business and does not prevent, *537 but rather leaves the way open and encourages stricter regulations by other governmental agencies in…”
LABORERS'INTERN, L. 478 v. Burroughs (1988)
“2d at 1150 , which dealt with billboard regulations: Section 479.15 ... clearly indicates that Chapter 479 was designed to establish minimum regulations for the outdoor advertising business and does not prevent, but rather leaves the way open and encourages stricter regulations…”
FLA. DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. ET Legg & Co. (1985)
“The court cited section 479.15(1), Florida Statutes (1977), which provided that "no zoning board or commission nor any other public officer or agency shall permit any advertisement .”
Wometco Enterprises, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach (1976)
“15(2) sets out general rules requiring compensation for the removal of signs by cities and other political subdivisions, and §479.15 (3) prohibits removal by cities of outdoor advertisements or advertising structures which are adjacent to roads or highways on the federal…”
LAMAR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES OF EAST FLA., LTD. v. City of Daytona Beach (1984)
“Section 479.15(2), Florida Statutes, provides: No municipality, county, local zoning authority, or other political subdivision shall remove, or cause to be removed, any advertisement or advertising structure without paying compensation in accordance with s.”
City of Ormond Beach v. Lamar-Orlando Outdoor Advertising (1979)
“78-35 *197 of the City of Ormond Beach, requiring the removal of non-conforming off-premise advertising structures (billboards) at the end of the said ten year period, without payment of compensation by the City of Ormond Beach to the owners of such off-premise advertising…”
— 479.15(1) — 5 cases
LAMAR-ORLANDO, ETC. v. City of Ormond Beach (1982)
“Section 479.15(1) provides: *1321 No zoning board or commission nor any other public officer or agency shall permit any advertisement or advertising structure which is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter.”
La Pointe Outdoor Advertising v. Florida Dept. of Transp. (1980)
“Section 479.15(1), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: "no zoning board or commission nor any other public officer or agency shall permit any advertisement or advertising structure which is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter.”
City of Lake Wales v. LAMAR ADVER. (1981)
“Section 479.15, supra, clearly indicates that Chapter 479 was designed to establish minimum regulations for the outdoor advertising business and does not prevent, but rather leaves the way open and encourages stricter regulations by other governmental agencies in the lawful…”
FLA. DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. ET Legg & Co. (1985)
“The court cited section 479.15(1), Florida Statutes (1977), which provided that "no zoning board or commission nor any other public officer or agency shall permit any advertisement .”
Wometco Enterprises, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach (1976)
“15(2) sets out general rules requiring compensation for the removal of signs by cities and other political subdivisions, and §479.15 (3) prohibits removal by cities of outdoor advertisements or advertising structures which are adjacent to roads or highways on the federal…”
— 479.15(2) — 6 cases
LAMAR-ORLANDO, ETC. v. City of Ormond Beach (1982)
“Section 479.15(1) provides: *1321 No zoning board or commission nor any other public officer or agency shall permit any advertisement or advertising structure which is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter.”
T & L MANAGEMENT v. Dept. of Transp. (1986)
“Appellant also contends in all six cases that it is entitled to just compensation pursuant to Section 479.15(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.”
City of Lake Wales v. LAMAR ADVER. (1981)
“Section 479.15, supra, clearly indicates that Chapter 479 was designed to establish minimum regulations for the outdoor advertising business and does not prevent, but rather leaves the way open and encourages stricter regulations by other governmental agencies in the lawful…”
Wometco Enterprises, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach (1976)
“15(2) sets out general rules requiring compensation for the removal of signs by cities and other political subdivisions, and §479.15 (3) prohibits removal by cities of outdoor advertisements or advertising structures which are adjacent to roads or highways on the federal…”
LAMAR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES OF EAST FLA., LTD. v. City of Daytona Beach (1984)
“Section 479.15(2), Florida Statutes, provides: No municipality, county, local zoning authority, or other political subdivision shall remove, or cause to be removed, any advertisement or advertising structure without paying compensation in accordance with s.”
— 479.15(3) — 2 cases
LAMAR-ORLANDO, ETC. v. City of Ormond Beach (1982)
“Section 479.15(1) provides: *1321 No zoning board or commission nor any other public officer or agency shall permit any advertisement or advertising structure which is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter.”
Wometco Enterprises, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach (1976)
“15(2) sets out general rules requiring compensation for the removal of signs by cities and other political subdivisions, and §479.15 (3) prohibits removal by cities of outdoor advertisements or advertising structures which are adjacent to roads or highways on the federal…”
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.