This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division or ALJD) upon Respondent South
Carolina Department of Transportation's (Department or DOT) denial of Petitioner Carolina Outdoor
Development's (Carolina Outdoor) application for an outdoor advertising permit. The Department denied the
permit on the grounds that the designated business is not a qualifying commercial or industrial activity
pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 57-25-120(5)(e) and (f) (Supp. 2000). The Department asserts that the business
activity is (1) a transient activity, as defined by 25A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 63-342(CC)(1) (Supp. 2000), and
(2) not visible, as defined by 25A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 63-342(HH) (Supp. 2000), from the main-traveled
way. (1) After timely notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on May 15, 2001.FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On February 9, 2001, Carolina Outdoor applied to the Department for three outdoor advertising permits.
2. The three signs were proposed to be located within an unzoned commercial area in Calhoun County on
Interstate 26 in front of and on both sides of the qualifying business. The proposed locations are near
milepost 132 on the north-bound side of the highway. It is undisputed that the proposed sign sites are within
600 feet of the business.
3. The purported qualifying activity was Matthew's Auto Service, a mechanic's shop (business). Mr.
Matthews has operated a mechanic's shop in the area since the early 1990s and leased the building in which
the business is currently located in August or September of 2000. The building was modified to
accommodate Mr. Matthews' Repair Service by putting in a 10' x 12' bay door and a 20' x 25' concrete pad in
front. There are no other businesses in the immediate vicinity of the mechanic's shop. There are several
small businesses in the rural community, which is an otherwise unzoned area.
4. The Department denied Carolina Outdoor's application for two reasons: (1) it contends the designated
qualifying activity is not readily identifiable as a commercial activity or visible to the traveling public, and (2)
it contends the designated qualifying activity is transient, specifically that no employee is onsite performing
meaningful work and available to the public at least 36 hours per week on at least 4 days per week for at least
48 weeks per year.
5. The business and its identifying sign affixed to the side of the building are separated from the interstate by
a blind of trees, underbrush, and assorted foliage. During colder months in which the leaves have fallen and
the foliage is mostly bare, the business and its sign are partially obscured by trees and only faintly visible to
passing motorists. During warmer months in which these trees and underbrush have all or most of their
foliage, the business and its sign are completely obscured and not visible from the interstate.
6. Mr. Matthews, proprietor of the putative qualifying business, is a full-time emergency medical technician
(EMT) with a rotating schedule. That is, he works 24 hours on duty and has 48 hours off. He testified that it
is common for EMT's to have another job. Mr. Matthews' mechanic shop provides the majority of his
income. Mr. Matthews does not have any employees. He performs repairs on automobiles and other
equipment for at least 36 hours per week on at least 4 days per week for at least 48 hours per year. The sign
posted at his business lists a tentative "business hours" schedule when Mr. Matthews can ensure he will be
available. Because Mr. Matthews services several local businesses, he frequently works after normal
business hours as needed to repair necessary equipment for his customers. In addition, Mr. Matthews has
tentative plans to expand his business to include a friend who owns a rollback wrecker at the current location,
which would enable him to have someone there more frequently as a matter of good business practice.
In administrative proceedings, the general rule is that an applicant for relief, benefits, or a privilege has the
burden of proof, and the burden of proof rests upon one who files a claim with an administrative agency to
establish that required conditions of eligibility have been met. It is also a fundamental principle of
administrative proceedings that the burden of proof is on the proponent of a rule or order, or on the party
asserting the affirmative of an issue.
73A C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure § 128 at 35 (1983) (emphasis added), cited with
approval in Leventis v. S.C. Dep't of Health and Envtl. Control, 340 S.C. 118, 133, 530 S.E.2d 643, 651 (Ct.
App. 2000).
B. Transient Activity and Scheduled Hours
The requirements in the regulations delineating Transient or Temporary Activities have been judicially
determined to be a valid exercise of the authority granted to the Department by statute. Young v. S.C. Dep't
of Highways and Public Trans., 287 S.C. 108, 336 S.E.2d 879 (Ct. App. 1985). S.C. Code Ann. § 57-25-185
(Supp. 2000) explicitly directs the Department to promulgate regulations consistent with the state and federal
statutes. These regulations and the agency's interpretation of them are entitled to deference from this
tribunal.
Our Supreme Court has held that interpretive rules are 'entitled to great respect by the courts but [are] not
binding on them.' An interpretive rule is a rule which is promulgated by an administrative agency to
interpret, clarify or explain the statutes or regulations under which the agency operates.
Young v. S.C. Dep't of Highways and Pub. Transp., 287 S.C. 108, 112, 336 S.E.2d 879, 881-82 (Ct. App.
1985) (citations omitted). (3)
In order for a business not to be considered "transient or temporary," it must maintain certain standards;
among them, the business must have at least one employee attendant at the activity site, performing
meaningful work and available to the public for at least 36 hours per week on at least 4 days per week for at
least 48 weeks per year. 25A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 63-342(CC)(1) (Supp. 2000). In the instant case, Mr.
Matthews presented credible testimony that he works at the business at least 36 hours per week on at least
four days for at least 48 weeks per year. Even though he works as a full-time EMT, his schedule is flexible to
allow him to comply with the aforementioned hours required by the regulation. The Department seems to
hinge its argument that Mr. Matthews does not comply with the hourly work requirement on the schedule
posted at the business on the day of its inspection. Mr. Matthews explained that the schedule was tentative
and varied from week to week; this is the reason it was posted on an erasable board.
Furthermore, the evidence indicated that Mr. Matthews is available at the site far more than the posted
schedule indicates. On days when Mr. Matthews does not work as an EMT, he is either at the shop, on
service calls, or going to get parts; he sometimes works as late as 10 p.m. Even making allowances for times
when Mr. Matthews is away from the shop on service calls or to get parts, I find that Mr. Matthews has met
the regulatory requirements and that his business is not a Transient or Temporary Activity. The owner has
more than $60,000 invested in a concrete block building; Mr. Matthews has approximately $10,000 invested
in capital and equipment, including a large toolbox, lifts, jacks, compressors, air tools, and diagnostics. The
building has a concrete foundation and floor, gas and electric heat, a fully functional bathroom and potable
water, phone service, and electricity.
C. Visibility Requirement
Under the Highway Advertising Control Act (Act), S.C. Code Ann. § 57-25-110 et seq. (Rev. 1991 and Supp.
2000), an outdoor advertisement or billboard may not be displayed or erected along an Interstate unless it
satisfies an exception. The purpose of the statute and accompanying regulations is to allow billboards for the
benefit of the traveling public in commercial or industrial areas or close proximity to businesses while
preserving the aesthetics of pristine and undeveloped stretches of highway. See S.C. Code Ann. § 57-25-130
(Supp. 2000). Thus, the visibility requirement must be construed with consideration of the overall purpose of
the Act.
The one exception pertinent here is prescribed in S.C. Code Ann. § 57-25-140(8), "signs . . . located in
unzoned commercial or industrial areas. . . ." A commercial or industrial area is defined in S.C. Code Ann. §
57-25-120(5)(f) (Supp. 2000) (4), which provides:
'Commercial or industrial activities' means those established activities generally recognized as commercial or
industrial by zoning authorities within the State, except that none of the following are considered commercial
or industrial activities: . . . (f) activities not visible from the main-traveled way. . . . (Emphasis added.)
S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 63-342(HH) defines "visible" as:
capable of being seen (whether or not legible) and readily recognized as a sign or commercial or industrial
activity by a person of normal acuity. The presence of a sign, whether attached to the building or free-standing shall not be considered in determining whether or not a commercial or industrial activity is visible.
Thus, the purpose of the visibility requirement is to ensure that billboards are located in already commercial
areas, thus balancing commercial interests with maintaining aesthetics. A critical reading of the pertinent
regulations indicates that visibility must be addressed from the perspective of a person traveling in a car on
the interstate. Whether the business must be visible from a vehicle traveling at the speed limit or by standing
still is not addressed by the regulations. On the other hand, the criteria for determining whether a billboard is
legible or intended to be read from the main-traveled way specifically indicate that viewing time is to be
measured from a traveling car. See 25A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 63-343(A) (Supp. 2000). Legibility and
visibility are clearly distinguished in the regulations; legibility appears to be a higher threshold imposed on
the outdoor advertising signs themselves, rather than visibility of the business in qualifying for a permit.
Nonetheless, measuring visibility from a traveling car comports with the overall purpose of the Act and the
limits on the placement of billboards. Thus, the standard set forth in determining legibility from a traveling
car should also be used in gauging visibility.
In addition, Regulation 63-343(B) provides: "Where a sign is legible from two or more highways, one or
more of which is a highway subject to the provisions of the Act, the more stringent of applicable control
requirements will apply." 25A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 63-343(B) (Supp. 2000). Therefore, visibility should
also be determined from the interstate, not from the secondary road that runs parallel to the interstate.
Hence, the crux of the matter in this case is whether the sign and business are visible, as defined by the
regulation, from the interstate. That is, the business and sign must be (1) capable of being seen, and (2)
readily recognized as a sign or commercial or industrial activity by a person of normal visual acuity. Under
the definition of Visible provided in Regulation 63-342(HH), the presence of the sign affixed to the building
cannot be considered in determining visibility. The Department determines visibility based on a visual
inspection and the contents of the application. In the present case, the business and sign are only partially
visible during the times of the year when the leaves have fallen from the trees which intervene between the
business and the interstate. Thus, the business is not visible and readily identifiable for arguably half of the
year. The business is only partially visible when there is little or no foliage on the trees and from the vantage
point of a person standing still looking directly at the business. This is not what the Act contemplates and
does not meet the visibility requirements.
In U.S. Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (5), the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the Department's definition
of visibility to include "readily recognized as a sign or commercial or industrial activity" under 25A S.C.
Code Ann. Regs. 63-342(HH) (Supp. 2000) was within its authority pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 57-25-150(D) and -220 (Supp. 2000). The definition did not impermissibly expand the requirement that a business
be visible under S.C. Code Ann. § 57-25-120(5)(f) (Supp. 2000), but rather was reasonably related to the
purpose of the Act and furthered the accompanying public policy. (6) Under Carter (7) as modified by U.S.
Outdoor Advertising, Inc., the sign and business must be visible and recognizable as a commercial activity;
however, the particular type of commercial activity need not be discernible to meet the visibility requirement
for an outdoor advertising permit, nor does the Department require this in evaluating applications. In any
event, in the instant case, the business and the sign are visible only for approximately half of the year. S.C.
Code Ann. § 57-25-120(5)(f) (Rev. 2000) and Regulation 63-342(HH) are not satisfied by a sign and business
which are only visible part of the year. (8)
Under the second part of the regulatory definition of visible, the business must be readily recognized as a
commercial or industrial activity without considering the sign. Here, when the business is partially visible, it
is recognizable as a commercial activity during the winter months. While the Department argued that the
business structure resembled a house, it would appear to a reasonable person traveling on the interstate that a
business activity was being conducted based on the structure of the building, even if it were not completely
discernible what type of business activity.
D. Equal Protection
Petitioner raised an equal protection argument contending that the Department has employed disparate
treatment in the granting and denial of outdoor advertising permits. Petitioner contends that his equal
protection rights have been violated, as businesses which are not readily visible or are less visible than
Matthews Auto Service and are not clearly discernible as commercial activities have been granted outdoor
advertising permits. I do not find that Petitioner has been deprived of his Fourteenth Amendment right to
equal protection. Petitioner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that he was treated differently from
other similarly situated sign owners. Grant v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348, 461 S.E.2d 388
(1995).
Petitioner presented no evidence that the allegedly comparable sites were permitted under the same
provisions. Recently permitted qualifying businesses may qualify under the regulations, though the buildings
are smaller, less permanent than concrete, and may not be as readily identifiable as a commercial business
than Mr. Matthews' business. Further, it is reasonable that signs may go undetected or inadvertently
overlooked as the Department has several miles of highway to monitor. Thus, any perceived inconsistency
with other permitted sites would be properly handled by corrective action by the Department rather than
granting the permit in this instance.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Carolina Outdoor's application for an outdoor advertising permit
based on Matthews Auto Service as a qualifying commercial activity is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
June 29, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina
1. On the eve of trial, the Department made a motion on May 14, 2001, to amend its Prehearing Statement to
include the ground that Petitioner's business constitutes a transient activity as an independent basis for its
denial of the permit. The Department asserts that an employee does not perform meaningful work and is not
available to the public for at least 36 hours per week for 4 days per week at least 48 weeks per year. The
Department contends the ground was inadvertently omitted from the denial letter. Petitioner initially objected
to Respondent raising the issue of transient activity as a ground for denial of its permit, since it was not
originally cited by the Department in its denial letter of February 20, 2001. While the Department's motion
was initially denied, Petitioner insisted that the Department proceed with both grounds for denial of the
permit now rather than litigate a subsequent denial of the permit on the ground that the business is transient.
Because Petitioner bears the burden of proving it meets all criteria for issuance of the permit, Petitioner
waived on the record at the hearing any objection to the Department raising the issue. Further, Petitioner
stated that it had adequate notice of the Department's contention that the business was a transient activity and
that it was prepared to present evidence addressing the issue.
2. The preponderance of the evidence is "[t]he greater weight of the evidence" or "superior evidentiary weight
that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair
and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other." Black's Law Dictionary 1201 (7th ed.
1999). "The preponderance of the evidence means such evidence as, when considered and compared with
that opposed to it, has more convincing force and produces in the mind the belief that what is sought to be
proved is more likely true than not true." Sanders, supra, § 9:5 Quantum of Evidence in Civil Cases (2000)
(citing Frazier v. Frazier, 228 S.C. 149, 89 S.E.2d 225 (1955)).
3. See also Nucor Steel v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 310 S.C. 539, 543, 426 S.E.2d 319, 321 (1992) ("Where
an agency is charged with the execution of a statute, the agency's interpretation should not be overruled
without cogent reason.") (citations omitted); Gilstrap v. S.C. Budget and Control Bd., 310 S.C. 210, 215, 423
S.E.2d 101, 104 (1992) ("Where an administrative agency has consistently applied a statute in a particular
manner, its construction should not be overturned absent cogent reasons.") (citations omitted); Ruocco v. S.C.
State Bd. of Registration for Prof. Engineers and Land Surveyors, 314 S.C. 111, 115, 441 S.E.2d 829, 831
(Ct. App. 1994) ("The construction of a statute by the agency charged with its administration will be accorded
the most respectful consideration and will not be overruled absent compelling reasons.") (citations omitted).
4. See also 25A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 63-342(FF)(1) (Supp. 2000).
5. U.S. Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 324 S.C. 1, 481 S.E.2d 112 (1997). The court noted
that "other jurisdictions have upheld similar regulations." Id. at 4, 114 (citing Osage Outdoor Adver. v. Mo.
Highway and Transp. Comm'n, 680 S.W.2d 164 (Mo. App. 1984); Blocher Outdoor Adver. v. Dep't of
Transp., 347 N.W.2d 88 (Minn. App. 1984); Dep't of Transp. v. Sapp Outdoor Adver. Co., 171 Ga. App.
228, 319 S.E.2d 87 (1984)).
6. U.S. Outdoor Adver., Inc. at 3-4, 113.
7. Carter v. S.C. Dep't of Highways and Pub. Transp., 279 S.C. 332, 306 S.E.2d 614 (1983). The court held
in Carter that the hearing commissioner exceeded his authority in imposing the requirement that the business
must be discernible as a commercial activity as a component of being visible. The regulations were
subsequently amended to include this requirement, which was later upheld as constitutional in U.S. Outdoor
Advertising, Inc.
8. Petitioner stated that it has considered clearing away the brush and much of the foliage intervening
between the business and the interstate for purposes of decreasing the risk of fire and increasing the visibility
of the business. The contemplated activity would require Petitioner to obtain a "daylighting" permit from the
Department under S.C. Code Ann. § 57-25-140(I)(1) (Supp. 2000); after clearing pursuant to a daylighting
permit, there is a two year waiting period before Petitioner could apply for an outdoor advertising permit.