Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

Validity of Zoning Regulations—After Billboard Company Modernizes Billboard, Township Claims Billboard is a Nuisance - Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2011 I Volume 51 No. 23 Billboard company challenges portion of zoning ordinance limiting modernization of nonconforming billboards Citation: Township of Blair v. Grand Lamar 0 North Corp., 2011 WL 5108510 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) MICHIGAN (10/27/11)—This case addresses the issue of whether a Michigan township could restrict the modernization of a nonconforming use that reduces nonconformities. It also analyzed whether a zoning re- quirement that billboards have a specified distance between them violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Background/Facts: Grand Lamar OCI North Corporation ("La- mar") -leased property in the township of Blair, Michigan (the "Town- ship") on which it maintained commercial billboards. One of Lamar's billboards was a "double decker" billboard (i.e., a two-level sign). It had been installed prior to the Township's Zoning Ordinance (the "ZO"). The billboard was a nonconforming use under the ZO because it exceeded: (1) display area requirements; (2) height requirements; and (3) requirements related to the distance between the signs. In December 2008, Lamar removed the upper portion of the sign and installed an LED display face on the remaining board. These changes elim- inated the nonconformities in display area. However, the nonconformities related to height requirements and requirements for space between signs did not change. The Township sued Lamar. It claimed that the billboard, which was a preexisting nonconforming use, constituted a nuisance per se because it violated § 20.08.3 of the ZO. Section 20.08.3 restricted the modification of a nonconforming uses—including those that reduced nonconformities. Modifications to nonconforming signs and billboards were restricted to those that "do not exceed an aggregate cost of thirty (30) percent of the appraised replacement cost of the sign or billboard, as determined by the Zoning Administrator," unless the modifications change the sign or bill- board to a conforming structure. Lamar counter-complained. It argued that Michigan law prohibited the Township from restricting the modification of a nonconforming use that reduces nonconformities. It also alleged that the requirement in § 20.07.3 that billboards be located 2,640 feet apart violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The circuit court found in favor of the Township. Lamar appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. 0 2011 Thomson Reuters 9