Case Law Summaries

Steen Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. State of New Jersey

• Opinion Date: July 13, 2000
• Real Property Law
• E-Mail

BILLBOARDS—The Department of Transportation has broad authority to interpret statutes and its own regulations.

Outside of all municipalities with a population of over 40,000, no outdoor billboard may be located adjacent to or within 500 feet of an interchange, intersection at grade, or safety rest area. According to regulations promulgated by the Department of Transportation, “[t]his distance shall be measured along the highway from the beginning or ending of pavement widening at the exit from or entrance to the main-traveled way.” An outdoor advertising company sought to place a sign on the reverse side of an authorized billboard. The Department of Transportation rejected the application on the ground that the sign was to be within 500 feet of a safety rest area. The advertising company, pointing out that the sign was not on the same side of the divided highway as the rest area, argued that there was no “adjacency” because of the separation from the rest area by the north bound and south bound lanes of the highway as well as by a grass median. The advertising company further pointed to the fact that the proposed sign was located 550 feet away from the safety rest area entrance and 895 feet from the exit. The Department of Transportation testified that its policy was to interpret “adjacent” as meaning that a sign is “visible to” and “in proximity” to traffic proceeding along the highway. It also explained that the 500-foot distance measurement was taken from the beginning of the pavement widening, or “lane jog” on the main highway leading to the safety rest area entrance. The Court pointed out that an administrative agency’s interpretation of statutes and regulations is entitled to deference. In the Court’s view, the Department’s interpretation of its regulations was consistent both with the plain language and the policy underpinnings of the Roadside Control and Outdoor Advertising Act. In the Department of Transportation’s view, “traffic safety must be deemed the paramount goal.” It argued that its interpretation of the “adjacent to” language as meaning “visible to” traffic was designed to prevent visual interference and distraction to traffic entering or exiting the safety rest area. The Court agreed. Further, the Court upheld the Department’s method of measuring the 500-foot distance, believing that a safety area could be treated as one continuous zone, including the jog area.

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.