In Gannett Outdoor Co. of Ariz. v. City of Mesa, 159 Ariz. 459, 463, 768 P.2d 191, 195 (App. 1989), where the plaintiffs sought to completely dismantle the original structure and replace it with a new structure, we found that a sign owner's proposed actions did exceed the statute's scope. Gannett, 159 Ariz. at 463-64, 768 P.2d at 195-96. Because we held that "alterations" cannot be defined to encompass the destruction of a billboard and the building of a new billboard, we concluded that the City of Mesa acted within its discretion by denying Gannett the permits it sought. Id. at 464, 768 P.2d at 196. The Court applied Gannett to another municipal suit in City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc., 194 Ariz. 390, 983 P.2d 759 (App. 1999). In Whiteco Metrocom, the Court affirmed the trial court's order to remove two billboards after Whiteco replaced the original twin I-beam support structure with a uni-pole structure without first obtaining a permit. Id. at 397-98, PP 27-29, 983 P.2d at 766-67. The Court held that this action did not constitute a "reasonable repair" under A.R.S. 9-462.02.