Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin - also argued that because the proposal did' not involve any change to the existing billboard structure, and only a change to the "sign face," it was not subject to the zoning ordinance. The ZHB disagreed with Lamar's arguments. The ZHB conclud- ed that Lamar's proposed changes triggered the need for conditional use and site plan approval in accordance with the zoning ordinance. Lamar appealed. The trial court affirmed the ZHB's ruling. La- mar appealed. DECISION: Affirmed '. The court first addressed Lamar's argument that the billboards were lawful nonconforming structures, which it had a right to modernize. The court noted that the natural expansion doctrine al- lowed a legal nonconforming use to be increased in extent by natu- ral expansion and growth of trade. The court found, as' the ZHB and trial court had, that Lamar had only asserted the billboards were legal nonconforming uses; it had not presented any evidence to support this. assertion. The court went on to say that, even as- suming that the billboards were legal nonconforming uses, Lamar failed to file the proper application for expansion or modernization of ' the nonconforming use. The court pointed to Sections 301.2 and 302 of the zoning ordinance, which set forth the need to ob- tain a variance to expand a nonconforming structure, The court found that Lamar did not seek such a special exception to change the billboards. The court next addressed Lamar's argument that it should not have to obtain a conditional use permit along with a site plan ap- proval for the proposed billboard changes. The court pointed to Section 601 of the zoning ordinance's defi- nitions of "structure" and "sign face." The court also pointed to Section 306's requirement of a site approval before the issuance of a zoning permit where there was any alteration or change of any structure. The court found that Lamar's billboards were clearly structures under the zoning ordinance. The court also found that a "sign face" was part of the struc,ture. The court noted that chang- ing the billboard to LED displays required electric services, cables and air conditioning units that Lamar would need to bolt to the billboards. The court found these additions were "significant struc- tural alterations" to the billboard structure. Accordingly, the court concluded that the proposed changes required a zoning perrit along with a site plan. a 160 ,~ \ >\ 1 .-/J ';1 J -./'