| |
|
| Date: September 9, 2009 |
| State: FHWA |
| Subject: Destroyed Sign Guidance |
| From: Gerald Solomon, FHWA |
| To: FHWA |
Brief Description: Provides information to assist Division Offices in determining whether a state is maintaining “effective control” of destroyed signs to meet the requirements of the Highway Beautification Act and implementing regulations including 23 CFR 750.707(d)(6)(i). Click here to view the memorandum. |
|
| Date: March 10, 2005 |
| State: Tennessee |
| Subject: Nonconforming Outdoor Advertising Signs Destroyed by Natural Disasters |
| From: Susan Lauffer, Director, Office of Real Estate Services |
| To: Mr. Bobby W. Blackmon, Division Administrator Nashville, Tennessee |
Brief Description: Concurs with Tennessee Division's decision to work with the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) to achieve compliance with the prohibition against the reconstruction of storm-damaged nonconforming signs. Click here to view the memorandum. |
|
| Date: March 8, 2005 |
| State: FHWA |
| Subject: Guidance on Adjustment of Nonconforming Outdoor Advertising Signs |
| From:Susan Lauffer, Director, Office of Real Estate Services |
| To: Directors of Field Services Division Administrators, Division of Realty Professionals |
Brief Description: Provides guidance on the question whether nonconforming signs may be adjusted where action by the state transportation agency obstructs visibility of the sign from the highway. Consistent with previous guidance, the provisions of the HBA and its implementing regulations do not permit such adjustments to nonconforming outdoor advertising signs. Click here to view the memorandum. |
|
| Date: November 14, 2000 |
| State: Florida |
| Subject: Catwalks Added to Nonconforming Signs |
| From: Bill Wade |
| To: Juanice Hagan, Florida DOT |
Brief Description: FHWA does not have an issue with catwalks for the purpose of safety on nonconforming signs and does not consider that a substantial change. Click here to view the memorandum. |
|
| Date: July 20, 1999 |
| State: Florida |
| Subject: Destroyed Nonconforming Signs |
| From:Susan Lauffer, Director, Office of Real Estate Services |
| To: Mr. James St. John, Division Administrator |
Brief Description: Review of Florida HB 1535 section 24 provides that the owners of any nonconforming buildings, houses, businesses, or other appurtenances to real property damaged or destroyed during the June and July 1998 wildfires may elect to repair or rebuild such nonconforming structures. Click here to view the memorandum. |
|
| Date: September 1, 1995 |
| State:Virginia |
| Subject: Lighting Nonconforming Signs- Virginia |
| From: F.D. Luckow, Chief, Program Requirements Division |
| To: Roberto Fonseca-Martinez, Virginia Division Administrator |
Brief Description: Answers the question whether the new owners of certain nonconforming signs may add lights on a separate structure, but not on the nonconforming sign itself. Click here to view the memorandum. |
|
| Date: June 23, 1992 |
| State: Montana |
| Subject: Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, signed into law June 22, 1992 |
| From: Merlin J. Voegele, Division Right of Way Officer |
| To: John Rothwell, Director Montana Department of Transportation |
| Brief Description: Public Law 102-302, relating to Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, signed into law June 22, 1992, amends 23 U.S.C. 131(n) making the expenditure of section 104 funds for the purpose of acquiring and removing nonconforming signs entirely discretionary with respect to the state. A state may use Federal-aid funds to acquire nonconforming signs but if it chooses not to do so, there is no risk of penalty. Click here to view the memorandum. |
|
| Date: January 17, 1977 |
| State: FHWA |
| Subject: Blank Signs |
| From: Chief, Real Property Acquisition Division |
| To: Regional Federal Highway Administrators |
| Brief Description: Clarifies the definition of what constitutes a blank sign under Federal Regulations. Click here to view the memorandum. |
|
