State of Alabama Department of Transportation v. Pace Reid

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/24/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2100351 S t a t e o f Alabama Department o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n v. Pace R e i d Appeal from Shelby C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900004) THOMAS, Judge. The State ("ALDOT") a p p e a l s reversing upholding o f Alabama Department of Transportation from a judgment o f t h e Shelby C i r c u i t a d e c i s i o n o f an A d m i n i s t r a t i v e the decision of ALDOT to Law Judge deny Pace Court ("ALJ") Reid's 2100351 a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a p e r m i t t o e r e c t an outdoor We owns a p a r c e l o f r e a l for Interstate property north-entrance driveway, concrete paved area ("the driveway. moving south-entrance area company") i s c u r r e n t l y The ("the advertising Highway Act"), together with of the south- ALDOT t h e p r o p e r t y and On May 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , for a permit s i g n on h i s p r o p e r t y Reid to erect adjacent an t o I-65 a t 1 Beautification codified A c t -- advertising Outdoor A d v e r t i s i n g a t § 23-1-251, A l a . Code 1975 e t s e q . , the r e g u l a t i o n s adopted provide theprocedures outdoor and a which i s l o c a t e d a t leasing with application 244.88. a A m o v i n g company named C h a n g e s i n L a t i t u d e filed milepost driveway, and t h e beginning on t h e p r o p e r t y . outdoor The p r o p e r t y a gravel parking area, operating i t s business an the-right-of- ("the c o n c r e t e p a d " ) , end of t h e p a r k i n g entrance a along County. 65 ( " I - 6 5 " ) i n S h e l b y c o n t a i n s a s m a l l group o f b u i l d i n g s , the sign. affirm. Reid way advertising and standards signs i n areas b y ALDOT governing adjacent thereunder, theerection of to interstate A t t h e same t i m e , R e i d a l s o a p p l i e d f o r a p e r m i t t o e r e c t a n o u t d o o r a d v e r t i s i n g s i g n a t m i l e p o s t 2 4 4 . 9 7 , w h i c h ALDOT approved. That a p p l i c a t i o n i s n o t a t i s s u e i n t h i s appeal. 1 2 2100351 highways and a n y o n e who area primary highways. d e s i r e s t o e r e c t an adjacent application Act other to an provides outdoor interstate for a permit The Act provides advertising that sign in an submit an S e c t i o n 23-1-273 of the highway f r o m ALDOT. that, subject to certain must exceptions, "[n]o s i g n s h a l l , s u b j e c t to the p r o v i s i o n s of S e c t i o n 2 3 - 1 - 2 7 4 , be e r e c t e d o r m a i n t a i n e d i n an a d j a c e n t a r e a a f t e r F e b r u a r y 10, 1972, n o r s h a l l any outdoor a d v e r t i s i n g s i g n , d i s p l a y , or device w i t h the p u r p o s e of i t s message b e i n g read from the main-traveled way of an interstate highway or p r i m a r y h i g h w a y be e r e c t e d a f t e r A p r i l 11, 1978, o u t s i d e o f an u r b a n a r e a b e y o n d 660 f e e t of the n e a r e s t edge o f r i g h t - o f - w a y o f an i n t e r s t a t e or primary highway." One of the advertising that are the prohibition located outside located industrial, of unzoned or commercial this definition Section of an at or any time activities s t a t e or not commercial section." is areas." zoned under zoned, but industrial 23-1-271(10) unzoned commercial, area: 3 § is for signs an which "business areas outdoor A area in urban on 23-1-273(5). adjacent law signs to a r e a i s d e f i n e d i n § 2 3 - 1 - 2 7 1 ( 1 ) as " [ a ] n y p a r t o f business any exceptions area the which as for business, a u t h o r i t y of c o n s t i t u t e s an defined provides business, in this the following or industrial 2100351 "The l a n d o c c u p i e d b y t h e r e g u l a r l y u s e d b u i l d i n g , parking l o t , storage or processing area of a commercial, business, or i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y , and t h e l a n d w i t h i n 600 f e e t t h e r e o f on e a c h s i d e o f t h e h i g h w a y . The u n z o n e d a r e a s h a l l n o t i n c l u d e : " a . L a n d on t h e o p p o s i t e s i d e o f an i n t e r s t a t e or primary freeway highway from an unzoned commercial, business, or i n d u s t r i a l a r e a , as d e f i n e d a b o v e ; "b. Land predominantly residential purposes; used for "c. Land zoned by s t a t e or r e g u l a t i o n , or ordinance; local law, " d . L a n d on t h e o p p o s i t e nonfreeway primary highway d e t e r m i n e d s c e n i c by [ALDOT]. s i d e of a which is " A l l m e a s u r e m e n t s s h a l l be f r o m t h e o u t e r e d g e s of the regularly used b u i l d i n g s , parking lots, storage or p r o c e s s i n g areas of the commercial or i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s , not from the p r o p e r t y l i n e s of the activities, unless said property lines c o i n c i d e w i t h the limits of the regularly used b u i l d i n g s , p a r k i n g l o t s , storage or p r o c e s s i n g areas and shall be along or p a r a l l e l to the edge or pavement of the highway." Reid's ALDOT property denied is Reid's located in an application unzoned, for an nonurban outdoor area. advertising sign because i t determined t h a t the proposed l o c a t i o n for the outdoor was feet of any denial of his advertising commercial permit activity. sign Reid t o e r e c t an o u t d o o r not within appealed 600 ALDOT's a d v e r t i s i n g s i g n to the D i v i s i o n 4 of 2100351 Administrative Hearings of the Attorney General's Office; ALDOT r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g b e f o r e a n A L J . The A L J h e l d a h e a r i n g o n R e i d ' s which the A L J heard ore tenus Braden, and the assistant company. buildings property and than and t h e south-entrance the proposed testified wash area 600 f e e t location; Stevens, that from are located the proposed t h e moving i t strucks. company were w i t h i n Reid argued used that the commercial activities d i s p u t e d Reid's and Stevens's o f t h e moving was r e g u l a r l y u s e d f o r a n y c o m m e r c i a l outdoor- Stevens the concrete because assertion on t h e 600 f e e t o f pad t o the concrete pad was u s e d b y t h e m o v i n g c o m p a n y t o w a s h i t s t r u c k s , of of the of the concrete outdoor-advertising-sign location. that James presented, the however, p o r t i o n s driveway at permits t h e owner to the testimony the parking advertising-sign pad t e s t i m o n y from R e i d ; from Bradley According a r e more application, s t a t e maintenance engineer over o p e r a t i o n s ; and from moving permit i t was p a r t company. ALDOT that the concrete pad activity; i targued that t h e m o v i n g c o m p a n y ' s u s e o f t h e c o n c r e t e p a d was o n l y s p o r a d i c at best. regulations Reid also argued do n o t r e q u i r e that an o u t d o o r 5 the Act and advertising ALDOT's sign t o be 2100351 l o c a t e d w i t h i n 600 f e e t o f c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t y ; ALDOT d i s p u t e d this assertion. The A L J subsequently entered a proposed ALDOT's d e c i s i o n t o d e n y t h e p e r m i t sign. In proposed feet i t sproposed any commercial proposed order a notice of appeal Code See § 41-22-20(b) After of a hearing counsel, ALJ's for listed have forjudicial court three issued outdoor bases 600 o f ALDOT. review the ALJ's Reid i n the entered court heard then Ala. trial arguments a judgment r e v e r s i n g t h e ALDOT t o i s s u e a p e r m i t advertising sign. f o r i t s determination the permit was more t h a n a n d ( d ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . d e c i s i o n and d i r e c t i n g the proposed the w i t h ALDOT, s e e § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( b ) , a t which the t r i a l the t r i a l that ALDOT a d o p t e d determination 1975, and a p e t i t i o n court. the A L J concluded activity. as a f i n a l upholding f o r an o u t d o o r a d v e r t i s i n g outdoor-advertising-sign location from filed order, order to Reid. First, to Reid The t r i a l that court ALDOT should the t r i a l court determined that neither theA c t nor the applicable regulations required area an o u t d o o r t o be Secondly, a d v e r t i s i n g s i g n i n an unzoned, located within the t r i a l court 600 f e e t determined 6 of commercial that nonurban activity. the concrete pad, 2100351 which was located advertising-sign within 600 l o c a t i o n , was company; t h e r e f o r e , the trial outdoor-advertising-sign commercial the "processing in § within to area" the 600 this Third, the regularly court the proposed used by determined, was trial driveway was the moving the proposed 600 within court outdoor- feet determined a part of of that the f o r t h e m o v i n g company, as t h a t t e r m i s u s e d therefore, proposed f e e t of f e e t of of location south-entrance 23-1-270(10); because 600 activity. entire feet the the trial court determined, outdoor-advertising-sign location south-entrance driveway, i t was commercial a c t i v i t y . ALDOT s u b s e q u e n t l y was within appealed court. "'"Judicial r e v i e w o f an agency's administrative decision is limited to determining whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence, whether the agency's a c t i o n s were r e a s o n a b l e , and whether i t s a c t i o n s were w i t h i n i t s s t a t u t o r y and constitutional powers. Judicial review is also l i m i t e d by the presumption of correctness which attaches to a decision by an administrative agency."'" Ex p a r t e Medical Licensure 1097 ( A l a . 2004) So. 2d Medicaid 1010, Agency (quoting 1012 v. Comm'n o f A l a b a m a , 897 Ex p a r t e (Ala. 2001), Peoples, 549 7 A l a b a m a Bd. quoting So. 2d 504, So. 2d of N u r s i n g , in turn 506 1093, 835 Alabama (Ala. Civ. 2100351 App. 1989)). court's Furthermore, judgment this court as t o an a g e n c y ' s without a presumption of correctness reviews a circuit administrative decision because the c i r c u i t court is i n no b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e a g e n c y ' s d e c i s i o n is this Civ. court. i t s judgment, reversal of determined (1) advertising sign within pad v. Fancher, the t r i a l the that ALJ's court listed decision. (Ala. was r e g u l a r l y u s e d b y t h e m o v i n g a n d (3) t h a t d r i v e w a y was a p r o c e s s i n g appeal, an outdoor located the concrete company as p a r t of i t s south-entrance arguments r e l a t e d t o whether t h e advertising i n an 600 f e e t of unzoned, activity a n d w h e t h e r t h e m o v i n g company u s e d t h e c o n c r e t e p a d has not provided stated by the t r i a l within sign area of i t s regular located In i t s nonurban as p a r t t o be (2) t h a t outdoor t o be area the entire court an a r e a f o r t h e m o v i n g company. ALDOT h a s p r e s e n t e d requires bases f o r trial require nonurban 600 f e e t o f c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t y ; three The the law d i d not i n an unzoned, commercial a c t i v i t i e s ; Act 662 S o . 2 d 2 5 8 , 2 6 1 App. 1994). In its Clark than commercial a c t i v i t i e s . any argument court that 8 related commercial H o w e v e r , ALDOT to the third the south-entrance basis driveway 2100351 constituted a processing area therefore, part of the area commercial o f t h e moving t o be c o n s i d e r e d third basis any argument on a p p e a l as t o t h e c o r r e c t n e s s the judgment of the t r i a l court's 1165 ( A l a . 2007) for court. (quoting of that basis f o r "'An a r g u m e n t Avis challenging n o t made o n 986 S o . 2 d Rent A Car Sys., 876 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 2 4 n. 8 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ) . i s well appellant used judgment, i t has waived i s a b a n d o n e d o r w a i v e d . ' " Muhammad v . F o r d , Heilman, it for the t r i a l any argument the 1158, as b e i n g activity. B e c a u s e ALDOT h a s n o t p r o v i d e d appeal company a n d was, settled that, i n order to secure h a s an a f f i r m a t i v e d u t y Inc. v. Moreover, a reversal, "the o f showing error upon t h e record," T u c k e r v . N i c h o l s , 431 So. 2 d 1263, 1264 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , and "'[i]t court that record on i s not the function of this appeal argument.'" Ellison App. 2000)(quoting Civ. App. 1998)). 3d 7 3 3 , 739 to evidence v. Green, See a l s o (Ala. to discuss the court to support a a party's 775 S o . 2 d 8 3 1 , 833 ( A l a . C i v . Brown v. Brown, appellant trial find to search 7 1 9 S o . 2 d 2 2 8 , 230 Soutullo 2010)(holding that i n the opening might have r e l i e d 9 v. Mobile County, "the f a i l u r e brief as a b a s i s an i s s u e (Ala. 58 S o . of the on w h i c h f o r i t s judgment 2100351 [] results even i n an a f f i r m a n c e i f we determining nonurban agreed that area with ALDOT an o u t d o o r used commercial the t r i a l an the the t r i a l argument sign and i n d e t e r m i n i n g pad we w o u l d concerning south-entrance the moving as part still the t r i a l driveway company. i s part court erred i n i n an u n z o n e d , 600 f e e t o f t h a t t h e moving of i t s regular be c o m p e l l e d court's to affirm to present determination of the processing that area of 2 B e c a u s e ALDOT h a s n o t c h a l l e n g e d trial court c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e ALDOT h a s f a i l e d the the Therefore, t o be l o c a t e d w i t h i n concrete activities, that judgment"). advertising does n o t have regular commercial a c t i v i t y company of that based judgment o f t h e t r i a l a l l the bases i t s judgment, we must on w h i c h affirm the court. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, Bryan, and Moore, J J . , concur. B e c a u s e we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t b a s e d o n ALDOT's f a i l u r e to challenge a l l the bases f o r the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , we e x p r e s s n o o p i n i o n o n t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f the t r i a l c o u r t ' s l e g a l o r f a c t u a l determinations. 2 10

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.