Skiff's Workingman's Nursery v. Department of Transp., 89-0676
| Decision Date | 28 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-0676,89-0676 |
| Citation | 557 So.2d 233 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D606 SKIFF'S WORKINGMAN'S NURSERY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
We grant appellee's motion for rehearing and substitute the following opinion:
Appellant, Skiff's Workingman's Nursery (Skiff's) appeals a Department of Transportation (DOT) order denying reimbursement of impact fees.
In 1981 DOT notified Skiff's that due to the federally assisted construction of I-595 the nursery business would have to be relocated. DOT agreed to pay all costs of relocation permitted by SECTION 421.55 , FLORIDA STATUTES (1981)1. Skiff's moved to a new location in Coconut Creek, Broward County, and paid $37,386.20 in impact fees to obtain a plat and building permit. DOT denied the impact fees reimbursement claim. Florida's Division of Administrative Hearings issued an order recommending payment of the impact fees to which DOT filed exceptions. Florida's Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) rejected the hearing officer's recommendations and denied reimbursement of the impact fees. This appeal followed.
The Secretary relied on Department of Transportation v. Reddy Ice, DOAH Case No. 87-4590 (6/7/88), which adopted the Federal Highway Administration's interpretation that impact fees were operating expenses, and therefore, not reimbursable under 49 C.F.R. section 25.305(f). Reddy Ice concerned impact fees which were a prerequisite to the issuance of a relocation certificate of occupancy. The Town of Davie (Florida) where Reddy Ice relocated had an ordinance which required the payment of impact fees by any business which used a large quantity of water. The instant case concerned impact fees imposed by the city and county upon all new businesses for roadways and water/sewage. Payment was a prerequisite to the issuance of Skiff's relocation building permit.
We recognize that an administrative agency is afforded wide discretion in interpreting statutes which it administers and the agency's statutory construction is entitled to great weight, not to be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Atlantic Outdoor Advertising v. D.O.T., 518 So.2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So.2d 876 (Fla.1988). Courts must defer to a federal agency's interpretation of its governing statute that is reasonable and is not contrary to specific Congressional intent on the precise point at issue. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Permissible statutory interpretation must and will be sustained though other interpretations are possible and may even seem preferable according to some views. However, when an agency's interpretation conflicts with legislative intent, a court can decline to follow the agency's interpretation. Little Munyon Island v. Department of Environmental Regulations, 492 So.2d 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
We note that this case does not concern an agency's interpretation of its governing statute, but instead concerns an administrative body's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AMISUB (North Ridge General Hosp., Inc.) v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
...construction is entitled to great weight, and is not to be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Skiff's Workingman's Nursery v. DOT, 557 So.2d 233, 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In PIA Sarasota Palms, Inc. v. HRS, 10 F.A.L.R. 6989 (HRS Oct. 13, 1988), the petitioner argued that it had ......
-
MISS. DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. B & G OUTDOOR
...¶ 9. While there is no Mississippi case on point, Florida has dealt with a similar situation in Skiff's Workingman's Nursery v. Department of Transp., 557 So.2d 233, 235 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1990). Skiff's Nursery was required to relocate its business as the result of federally assisted highwa......
-
Secret Oaks Owner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 96-3230
...stated in this opinion, we conclude that the agency's interpretation is clearly erroneous. E.g., Skiff's Workingman's Nursery v. Department of Transportation, 557 So.2d 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Department of Envtl. Reg. v. Goldring, 477 So.2d 532 REVERSED and REMANDED. GOSHORN and THOMPSON,......
-
Braman Cadillac, Inc. v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, State of Fla.
...construction is entitled to great weight and is not to be overturned on appeal, unless clearly erroneous. Skiff's Workingman's Nursery v. DOT, 557 So.2d 233, 234 (Fla.4th DCA 1990). The Department adopted the recommended order which found that "nothing in the statute authorizes or requires ......