Kegerreis Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Department of Transportation
157 A.3d 1033
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Petitioner Kegerreis applied in 2011 for a permit to erect a 2-faced V-shaped LED billboard at 4200 Paxton St., adjacent to I-83, I-283 and visible from those interstates; property also lies near SR 322 (the Eisenhower Interchange).
- DOT initially denied the permit based on proximity to interchanges, but parties entered a February 1, 2012 Stipulation of Settlement in which DOT agreed to issue a permit and reserved the right to inspect and revoke if the sign was visible from other controlled highways (including SR 322).
- Petitioner erected the sign in March 2012. DOT revoked the permit on December 27, 2012 for the southern face because it was visible from SR 322 and within 500 feet of Ramps E and F, allegedly violating the Act’s 500‑foot “Interchange Prohibition.”
- After administrative hearings and a proposed report affirming revocation, the DOT Secretary denied Petitioner’s exceptions and finalized the revocation. Petitioner appealed to this Court.
- The core legal questions were (1) which controlled highway’s rules govern when a sign is visible from multiple highways, (2) whether Ramps E and F qualify as “interchanges,” and (3) whether DOT produced substantial evidence that the southern face was within 500 feet of an interchange.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which highway’s requirements control when sign is visible from multiple controlled highways? | I-83/I-283 (more restrictive) control, so SR 322 shouldn’t govern. | The Interchange Prohibition applies to both interstate and primary limited‑access highways; SR 322 is a controlled primary highway and its interchange rules apply. | Held: SR 322 is a controlling highway for the Interchange Prohibition; DOT’s interpretation is reasonable and controlling. |
| Do Ramps E and F constitute "interchanges" under the statute? | Ramps are merely merge/turn points where SR 322 continues; not interchanges. | Ramps E and F are exits/entrances allowing movement between highways without crossing traffic streams and meet common/dictionary meaning of interchange. | Held: Ramps E and F are interchanges. |
| Was there substantial evidence that the sign was within 500 feet of an interchange? | DOT did not perform the precise statutory measurement; testimony was insufficient. | DOT’s field markings, testimony, and Petitioner’s own site plan (scaled) show the sign is within 500 feet of Ramp E. | Held: Substantial evidence supports DOT’s conclusion the southern face lies within 500 feet of Ramp E. |
| What deference is owed to DOT’s interpretation? | Implicit challenge to DOT’s interpretations of measurement and applicability of interchange rule. | Agency interpretation of its statute/regulation is entitled to considerable weight unless clearly erroneous or inconsistent with statute’s intent. | Held: DOT’s interpretation is entitled to deference and is consistent with the Act’s safety and beautification purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patrick Media Group v. Department of Transportation, 620 A.2d 1125 (Pa. 1991) (describes Act’s purpose to limit outdoor advertising adjacent to interstate/primary highways)
- Martin Media v. Department of Transportation, 700 A.2d 563 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (affirms deference to DOT’s interpretation of the Interchange Prohibition and its purpose to reduce driver distraction at exits)
- George Washington Motor Lodge Co. v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 545 A.2d 493 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (accepts DOT’s interpretation that exit/entrance points for measurement include any exits/entrances from the main‑traveled way)
- Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 669 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (discusses deference to agency statutory interpretation)
- Adams Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. v. Department of Transportation, 860 A.2d 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (frames scope of review for administrative agency decisions)