366 So. 2d 116 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1979
This cause is before us on appeal from final agency action by order requiring removal of appellant’s outdoor advertising structure on the grounds of (1) no current permit tag and (2) enlargement of sign in violation of Rule 14 — 10.05(1)(m). As to ground (1), this Court’s opinion in Outdoor Advertising v. DOT, 366 So.2d 114 (1979),
Rule 14-10.05(l)(m) prohibits enlargement or significant repair to a sign which was in existence prior to December 8, 1971, but subsequently became “non-conforming” under the Federal Highway Beautification Act because of the sign’s proximity to the interstate highway system.
Accordingly, the order below is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith..
. Accord, Walker v. DOT, 366 So.2d 96 (1979).
. Rule 14-10.05(l)(m), Rules of the Department of Transportation Supp.No. 79: “No advertisement, advertising sign or advertising structure shall be constructed, erected, used, operated or maintained:
(m) Which became nonconforming under the Law and is enlarged, rebuilt, reerected or altered in any manner except normal routine maintenance. For the purpose of this procedure, normal routine maintenance is defined as annual painting and/or replacement of deteriorated 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 federal-aid primary system