Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2008

Home

July 10, 20081 Volume 21 No. 13 On appeal, the court determined that the city's zoning ordinance did not violate the Missouri Billboard Act (the Act) (Mo. Rev. Stat. ~.~ 226.500 et seq.). In so determining, the court noted that the purpose of the Act was to, among other objectives, reduce the number of sign- boards crowding the highways. The court found that the Act provided a set of default standards for new billboard construction. The court also noted that another state statute, ~ 71.288, governed municipalities re- strictions on olitdoor advertising (Mo. Rev. Stat. ~ 71.288). The court found ~ 71.288 granted munlcipalities the authority to adopt regula- tions with respect. to outdoor advertising that were "more restrictive than the height, size, lighting arid spacing" provisions of the Act. Ad Trend argued that the permissive language of the Act (e.g., "outdoor advertising shall be permitted within [660] feet of the near- est edge of the right-of-way of highways") coupled with the express intent of the legislature to permit billboards (e.g., "the general assem- bly finds and declares that outdoor advertising is a legitimate com- mercial use ....") prohibited the city from banning all outdoor adver- tising. The court disagreed. The court said that the permissive default language and kgislative intent of the Act had to be read together with the language of~ 71.288. The court said two statutes relating to 'the same subject should be harmonized and read together as constituting one law. The court found that because ~ 71.288 authorized munici- palities to regulate the height, size, lighting, and spacing to any ex- tent, it impliedly'authorized them to pass a total ban on signs. Thus, the court concluded that an ordinance could-as it found the city's ordinance did-mean: the maximUm area of a sign was to be no greater than zero and the minimum spacing between signs was to be infinite. The court concluded that the city could, under the Act and S 71.288, ban new billboards. See also: State v. Gilmore, 342 Mo. 1232, 119 S. W.2d 805 (1938). .; i Case Note: Ad Trend had also argued that the city was required to apply the ordinance in effect at the tim:e of its billboard permit application, rather than the ordinance in effect when the' permit was denied. The court refused to consider the argument, finding Ad Trend failed to cite relevant authority or explain why such authority. was not available. Similarly, the court refused to ad- dress Ad Trend's argument that the city did not have ninety days to determine whether or not to grant or deny the permit because Ad Trend failed to cite any authority in support of its argument. " @ 2008 Thomson ReutersJWest 9 45