Court Opinion

ID: 9584550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:49:55.458725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:27.559095
License: Public Domain

Deen, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
This is the sixth consideration of the issue in this case. After further study of this matter on rehearing I am convinced that the state hearing officer, Joseph J. Fullbright, Sr. was correct in his decision dated October 31,1977, when he found "... that the sign site in question in this appeal is not located to be within 500 feet from the point at which the pavement commences or ceases to widen at the entrance or exit from the main traveled way along the highway, which in this case is the easterly side of the intersection to which said sign is adjacent thereto. Thus a permit may be issued.”
"No sign... shall be erected or maintained which: (r) is located outside of the corporate limits of a municipality and adjacent to an Interstate highway within 500 feet of *340an interchange, intersection at grade, or safety rest area. The foregoing 500 foot zone shall be measured along the Interstate highway from the point at which the pavement commences or ceases to widen at exits from or entrances to the main traveled way.” (Emphasis supplied.) Code Ann. § 95A-916 (r). The word "shall” in the second sentence correctly indicates the issue of only one measurement rule, and the word "foregoing” ties the sentences together creating only one limited area particularly defined by the second sentence. No reference is made to the "no-ramps” side of the "half diamond” interchange. Therefore, to fill in this gap would be judicial usurpation of a legislative prerogative.
I respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Judge McMurray joins in this dissent.