Archive

Posts Tagged ‘billboards’

BZA cannot condition permit on removal of nonconforming billboards when all criteria for granting permit are met

May 16th, 2013

by Gary Taylor

Curry Investment Co., et al. v. Kansas City Board of Zoning Adjustment
(Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, May 7, 2013)

On May 20, 2011, MLB Holdings filed an application with the Kansas City Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) requesting a special use permit to operate a pawn shop in Kansas City, Missouri. The landowner, Curry Investment Company, agreed to lease its building and parking lot to MLB.  The property where the building and parking lot are located contains two nonconforming outdoor advertising signs, which Curry Investment leases to CBS Outdoor. The BZA held a hearing on July 12, 2011, concerning MLB’s application. The BZA staff submitted a report at the hearing that cited the requisite special use permit criteria, and concluded that “all of these criteria are met with the proposed application.” The report also stated:

In recent years staff has had a general policy that as property is redeveloped,3 any existing billboards that are on the site are removed within five years of the approval of the development. The City Plan Commission has affirmed that position several times, specifically in the last several months . . . . Staff believes as part of the approval process for a pawn shop that this development be held to the same standard as other developments within other areas of the City.

Curry Investment opposed any condition that required removal of the signs. Ultimately, the BZA approved the special use permit subject to  conditions, including removal of the outdoor advertising signs. Curry Investment and MLB requested a rehearing. The BZA held a hearing on the request for rehearing, and the BZA thereafter denied a rehearing.

Curry appealed the BZA decision to circuit court, which found that the BZA’s decision to require removal of the two outdoor advertising signs for special use permit approval for the pawnshop was not supported by substantial and competent evidence, was unrelated to any impact generated by the pawnshop use at the property, and exceeded the BZA’s authority. The BZA then filed a notice of appeal to the Missouri court of appeals.

The BZA contended that its authority to require removal of nonconforming signs as a condition for a special use permit comes from its mandate to determine if a proposed special use complies with the standards of the Code, whether it is in the interest of the public convenience and will not have a significant adverse impact on the general welfare of the neighborhood or community, and whether it is compatible with the character of the surrounding area in terms of building scale and project design. The Court of Appeals disagreed.  The record reflected that the BZA staff examined all of the special use criteria set forth in the zoning code and concluded that “all of these criteria are met with the proposed application.” Therefore, the staff found the proposed pawn shop, in its proposed location: 1) to be in compliance with the standards of the Code, 2) to be in the interest of public convenience and to not have a significant adverse impact on the general welfare of the neighborhood or community, 3) to be compatible with the character of the surrounding area in terms of site planning and building scale and project design, 4) to be compatible with the character of the surrounding area in terms of operating characteristics, such as hours of operation, outdoor lighting, noise, and traffic generation, and 5) to not have a significant adverse impact on pedestrian safety or comfort. “While the BZA now contends otherwise on appeal, nothing in the record suggests that removal of the nonconforming outdoor advertising signs was related to any of the special use criteria set forth in the Code. To the contrary, the BZA staff stated that all of the special use criteria were met, but that sign removal was recommended based on a ‘general’ staff policy that as property is redeveloped, the removal of existing billboards is required….Once it was determined that the criteria for the special use permit were met, it was unreasonable to require removal of the nonconforming signs as a special use permit condition. While the BZA may want to foster a general policy that, as property is redeveloped, any existing billboards on a site are removed, where the BZA has proven no relation to sign removal with the special use criteria set forth in the zoning code, this policy is in contradiction to [the protection of] nonconforming signs.”

Missouri Courts, Non-Conforming Uses, Signs and billboards, Zoning board of adjustment , , ,

City fails to demonstrate rational basis for prohibition of billboard extensions

January 24th, 2011

by Melanie Thwing

Clear Channel Outdoor v. City of St. Paul
(Federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 25, 2010)

Clear Channel Outdoor has owned and operated billboards in the City of St. Paul, MN since 1925. They regularly use billboard extensions when the customer’s needs require them. In St. Paul billboards until November 2000 were regulated with the zoning code, but were allowed. Then St. Paul, Minnesota Code §64.420 was passed which does not allow for any new billboards to be constructed. Effectively, the standing billboards were allowed as nonconforming uses. St. Paul Code §66.301(g) at the time still regulated the size and length of time for all extensions.

Then in March 2005 concerns about billboard extensions were brought to the city’s Planning Commission. The options of banning extensions altogether and allowing extensions through a permiting process were both discussed.  A resolution in support of the permitting scheme was ultimately adopted and transmitted to the city council. 

In August 2005 at a public hearing the City Council discussed the billboard extension issue, but laid the discussion over until November. During this time the Planning commission again took up the issue and again rejected the outright prohibition of billboard extensions.  Dispite this, in March 2006 the City Council adopted Ordinance 06-160, which prohibited all billboard extensions. The minutes did not reflect any discussion of costs or benefits of the ordinance.

Clear Channel filed a complaint in federal district court claiming (1) unconstitutional and unreasonable use of police power and (2) violation of Clear Channel’s due process and equal protection laws. After two years of mediation the parties were not able to reach an agreement. In January 2009 the district court ultimately found the ordinance arbitrary and capricious and therefore void because no rationale for the City Council’s decision was presented.

The City appealed the district court decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court applied the wrong standard. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids was the precedent cited by the district court. Honn declares, “…[t]he municipal body need not necessarily prepare formal findings of fact, but it must, at a minimum, have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion…” Clear Channel countered that the city was originally in favor of using the Honn standard, and originally argued it was controlling.

The 8th Circuit agreed with Clear Channel’s argument, citing specific instances where the city said Honn was controlling. Also, the 8th Circuit concurred that Honn was applicable because the procedure it announced should be followed in ‘any zoning matter, whether legislative or quasi-judicial…” Honn has legislative authority fromMinn. Stat. §462.357, subd 1, which gives a municipality the authority to regulate buildings and structures, which is the core of this case. It is concluded that Honn is applicable.

Secondly, the city argues that even if Honn is applicable, the district court was in err because it did not allow a trial that would have allowed the City to demonstrate the rational basis for its decision. The 8th Circuit noted, however, that the City had assured the district court that the record was complete and that a decision could be made. Honn does state that a trial may be allowed, but not required.  A trial is not made available simply “…to provide local governments with a routinized opportunity for a second bite at the apple by neglecting to provide and adequate record for review.” As long as the record is complete, as was the case here, no trial is necessary. The City failed to prove a rational basis for the ordinance prohibiting billboard extensions in any documents provided. The court refused to remand the case and affirmed the district court decision.

Due Process, Federal courts, Signs and billboards , , ,