What constitutes an intersecting highway under Utah's billboard regulations? Evans v. UDOT Explained

In Evans v. UDOT, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical question about billboard placement restrictions under the Utah Outdoor Advertising Act. The case provides important guidance for practitioners navigating the complex regulations governing outdoor advertising near interstate interchanges.

Background and Facts

Jamie Evans and Evans Billboards LLC applied for permits to construct two advertising signs near Exit 257 on Interstate 15 in Spanish Fork. The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) denied both applications because the proposed signs were within 500 feet of the interchange, violating the Act’s prohibition. Under the statute, signs are prohibited within 500 feet of an interchange unless the pavement widening is more than 2,640 feet from the centerline of the “intersecting highway” of the interchange. UDOT conceded there was no intersecting highway within 2,640 feet but argued that allowing the signs would violate the statute’s purpose.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was the meaning of “intersecting highway” under the Utah Outdoor Advertising Act. The district court concluded that the exit bridge crossing over I-15 constituted an intersecting highway, making the signs prohibited. UDOT argued that any public bridge or road crossing the interstate qualified as an intersecting highway under the broad definition of “highway” in the Transportation Code. Evans contended that “intersecting highway” referred specifically to the “other route” mentioned in the interchange definition.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals applied standard statutory interpretation principles, seeking the Legislature’s true intent through the plain language read as a whole. The court rejected both parties’ interpretations. UDOT’s interpretation would render the entire 2,640-foot limit superfluous because interchange components would always intersect the interstate at the exit point. The court determined that an “intersecting highway” must be a primary highway on the federal-aid primary system or National Highway System that directly intersects the interchange. Since neither US-6 nor SR-156 intersected the interchange within 2,640 feet of the pavement widening, the 500-foot prohibition did not apply.

Practice Implications

This decision provides a roadmap for challenging UDOT billboard permit denials. Practitioners should carefully analyze whether actual primary highways intersect the relevant interchange within the statutory distance, rather than accepting broad interpretations that include interchange infrastructure. The ruling also demonstrates the importance of harmonizing state regulations with federal agreements and avoiding interpretations that would render statutory provisions meaningless. For billboard operators, this decision may open opportunities for signage in locations previously considered prohibited.