Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2000

Home

Z.B. December I0, 1999 -.- Page 3 obviously those living near the new site would have had no reason to attend the first hearing. The changes in this case did not rise to that level. Citation: Boitnott v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Court of Appealx of Maryland, No. 18, September Term, 1999 (1999). see also: Ajamian v. Montgomery County, 639 A.2d 157'(1994). see also.'. Meadowridge v. Howard County, 675 A.2d 138 (1996). Rezoning -- Can state highway commission claiming illegal spot zoning deny. application for billboard? MISSOURI (11/9/99) m Redpath owned one-acre immediately South of a ma- jot highway. The property was vacant and surrounded by single family dwell- ings. Over the years, the site was used for illegal dumping. Redpath and a city councilman planned to build a community park on the property, which would be funded by a portion Of the advertising revenues from a billboard located on the site and visible from the highw~ay. Redpath applied to the city, of. Kansas City to rezone the property from residential to commercial to erect the billboard. The city planning and devel- opment department recommended the application's approval, and the city coun- cil rezoned the property. '- Redpath then applied to the state highway and transportation commission for an outdoor advertising permit. The commission denied the permit, stating "[a]ccording to the [s]tate's [s]tatutes governing outdoor advertising, spot zon- ing is prohibited for the sole purpose of accommodating a billboard." Redpath sued the commission. He alleged a state statute that excluded ar- eas spot zoned for 'outdoor advertising from the definition of commercial and industrial areas was illegal because it disallowed outdoor advertising in these areas. He also claimed the denial was arbitrary because the property's rezoning was not spot zoning and was not done solely for outdoor advertising. · The statute def'med spot zoning for outdoor advertising as "an amendment, variance, or exception to the comprehensive local zoning ordinance classify- ing or zoning a parcel of land as commercial, industrial, or suitable for outdoor advertising, out of harmony with the zoning classification or uses of surround- ing land." '.. .. The Federal Highway Beautification Act provides for control of the erec- tion of outdoor advertising signs in areas adjacent to major highways. It re- quires that states receiving federal highway funds establish provisions for bill- board control. However, if a local zo_ning action is not part of comprehensive zoning and is created "primarily" to permit outdoor advertising structures, the zoning action is not recognized as zoning for outdoor advertising control purposes. Both the commission and Redpath asked for judgment without a trial. The court found for Redpath, stating state law only allowed the commission to