Skip to content

Bills · 2013-2014 Regular Session

AB 205

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

Relating to: the removal of nonconforming outdoor advertising signs along highways. (FE)

Billboard Transportation, department of — Roads Transportation, department of — Vehicles

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Assembly, not reached
  3. Passes Senate, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. Law, not reached

Unfamiliar terms? Glossary

What this bill does

Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau

The federal Highway Beautification Act requires states to restrict advertising

along interstate and federal-aid primary highways, and current state law

incorporates these requirements. Current law prohibits, with certain exceptions,

the erection or maintenance of outdoor advertising signs within 660 feet of, or

otherwise visible (and intended to be visible) from, the main-traveled way of an

interstate or federal-aid primary highway. However, various exceptions apply to

this prohibition, including exceptions for the following: 1) signs advertising

activities conducted on the property on which the sign is located (on-property signs)

if certain conditions are met; 2) signs in business areas if certain conditions are met

or the signs were erected before March 19, 1972 (business area signs); 3) directional

and other official signs meeting certain criteria (directional signs); and 4) certain

signs located more than 660 feet from the highway (signs outside the adjacent area).

Under current law, the Department of Transportation (DOT) generally may

remove signs that do not conform to applicable requirements but, for each sign

removed, must pay just compensation to the owner of the sign and to the owner of

the land on which the sign is located. For on-property signs, if the on-property sign

was lawful when it was erected but later does not comply with the applicable

requirements for on-property signs, DOT must declare the sign to be nonconforming

but may not remove the sign unless additional criteria are met. These signs are not

subject to removal for changing the advertising message on the sign or performing

customary maintenance on the sign, but are subject to removal, without

compensation, if the sign is enlarged, replaced, or relocated or if additional signs are

erected. For signs lawfully erected after March 18, 1972, which subsequently become

nonconforming, DOT must require removal of the signs, with compensation, by the

end of the fifth year after they become nonconforming, but only if there are sufficient

funds available to DOT to pay just compensation for the sign removal.

Under this bill, business area signs, directional signs, and signs outside the

adjacent area (together referred to as off-property signs) that were lawfully erected

but which no longer conform to applicable requirements must be declared

nonconforming but are not subject to removal unless additional criteria are met.

These nonconforming off-property signs are not subject to removal for changing the

advertising message on the sign or performing customary maintenance on the sign.

These signs must remain substantially the same as they were on the date they

became nonconforming in order to be exempt from removal by DOT although they

can have an extension temporarily attached to the sign face if certain conditions are

met. "Substantially the same" is defined to mean that, since the sign became

nonconforming, no "substantial change" to the sign has been made. "Substantial

change" to a sign is defined to mean any of the following: increasing the number of

vertical supports; changing the physical location; increasing the square footage or

area of the sign face, except by adding a temporary extension meeting certain

Sponsors

Introduced by: A. Ott (R) , Ballweg (R) , Bies (R) , Honadel (R) , Jacque (R) , Jagler (R) , Ohnstad (D) , Ripp (R) , Stone (R) , Thiesfeldt (R)

4 cosponsors

Farrow (R) , Leibham (R) , Tiffany (R) , Zepnick (D)

Full history

  1. May 17, 2013 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Stone, Jacque, Bies, Ripp, Honadel, Thiesfeldt, Ohnstad, Ballweg, A. Ott and Jagler; cosponsored by Senators Leibham, Farrow and Tiffany

  2. May 17, 2013 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Transportation

  3. May 23, 2013 · Assembly

    Representative Zepnick added as a coauthor

  4. Apr 8, 2014 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1