Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2000

Home

Page 4 -- December t0, 1999 Z.B. · make rules minimally necessary to secure federal highway aid for the state, The court also found the commission acted arbitrarily by failing to consider the public benefit of rezoning in this case. The commission appealed. It alleged the exclusionary statute was. legal, and it was not requke, d to consider public welfare. DECISION: Reversed. The federal and state laws were not inconsistent, and the Commission did not step beyond its authority Federal law requkes' states receiving federal highway funds to establish provisions for the control of billboards. State law only authorized the commis- sion to make rules and regulations that were necessary to retain federal high: way funding. Under federal.law, states exercise full authority under their own zoning laws to zone areas for commercial or industrial purposes unless a zoning action "is not part of comprehensive zoning and is created primarily to permit out- door advertising structures." The .word "primarily" in the regulation did not contemplate a determination of"why" a billboard was being erected or whether spot zoning was permissible if done for a good reason. It contemplated a deter- mination of "why". a state or local zoning action was taken or why a particular property was zoned commercial or industrial. Under federal law, if property adjacent to a highway was zoned commer- cial or industrial for the primary purpose of permitting outdoor advertising and the zoning was not part of the comprehensive zoning, the zoning was not rec- ognized under federal law as commercial or industrial zoning for outdoor advertising purposes. Similarly, under state law, an area zoned for outdoor ad- vertising that was out of harmony with the zoning classification or uses of surrounding land did. not constitute zoried commercial or industrial area for outdoor advertising purposes. The two laws did not conflict. The state regulation excluded from zoned commercial or industrial areas, for purposes of outdoor advertising, an area zoned for outdoor advertising pur- poses that was out of harmony with thd zoning classification or surrounding land uses. The undisputed facts revealed the property was zoned commercial for the sole purpose of allowing the billboard and such zoning was out of har- mony with the surrounding land uses. The park could have been constructed without rezoning the property to commercial. Thus, the property was rezoned for the sole purpose of erecting a billboard. Also, the commission did not have to consider public welfare in its decision. Citation: Redpath v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western Dist., No. WD 56224 (1999). see also: State v. Duggar, 806 &W. 2d 407 (1991). see also: Pharmflex Inc. v. Division of Employment Sec., 964 S. W. 2d 825 (I997).