Jane Walker, Kima Poole, and Lamar Advertising Company “plaintiffs” applied to the Georgia Department of Transportation “DOT” for permits to erect outdoor advertising on property owned by Walker and Poole near Interstate 75 in Peach County. Following the DOT’s denial of those applications and the affirmation of that denial by an Administrative Law Judge “ALJ” with the Office of State Administrative Hearings “OSAH”, plaintiffs sought judicial review in the superior court, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that DOT’s denial of the applications was erroneous. The superior court ruled that the ALJ’s decision was affirmed by operation of law, and this discretionary appeal followed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. The record shows that since 1991, plaintiffs Walker and Poole have owned a 2600 feet by 2500 feet piece of property located at the end of a county frontage road that runs somewhat parallel to Interstate 75 in Peach County. In 2001, Walker and Poole successfully petitioned the Peach County Board of Commissioners to rezone a 2600 feet by 201 feet portion of the property abutting Interstate 75 from R-AG, Rural Agriculture, to C-2, Commercial, so that they could erect outdoor advertising on the rezoned portion in compliance with the Georgia Outdoor Advertising Act.1 Toward that end, Walker and Poole entered into a lease agreement with Lamar Advertising to erect five billboards on the rezoned portion of the property. Plaintiffs subsequently submitted permit applications for the billboards to the DOT’s Outdoor Advertising Division; however, the applications were denied on the ground that plaintiffs’ property was improperly rezoned.
Following the denial of their permit applications, plaintiffs appealed and requested a hearing before the OSAH. No action was taken on this request for nearly two years; however, while the request was pending, plaintiffs submitted additional information to the DOT regarding specific aspects of the property and its rezoning. Despite the additional information, the DOT’s Board affirmed the denial on the ground that the rezoning of the plaintiffs’ property from agricultural to commercial was improper in that the property had been strip zoned.2 An administrative hearing was held, in which plaintiffs contended that the property had not been impermissibly strip zoned. Nevertheless, the ALJ issued a decision affirming the DOT’s denial of the permit applications on the ground that plaintiffs’ property had been improperly strip zoned.
