Laserfiche WebLink
Page 8 -- January 25, 2004 <br /> <br />Signs -- Sign company claims ordinance not "solely'" for purpose of <br />erecting billboard <br />Federal and local laws differ on language <br />ARKANSAS (12/03/03) -- Lamar Outdoor Advertising Inc. applied to the <br />Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department for a permit to erect a <br />billboard in an area zoned commercial by the Cky of North Little Rock's com- <br />prehensive plan. However, the department had not certified the city's plan as <br />comprehensive. <br /> The city enacted an ordinance granting a special use permit for Lamar to <br />erect the billboard in exchange for Lamar removing another billboard else- <br />where in the city. <br /> However, under both the state and federal Highway Beautification Acts, a <br />zoning action done for the purpose of allowing the erection of a billboard was <br />illegal. The federal regulation used the term "primarily" in deciding whether a <br />zoning action was done for the purpose of erecting a billboard, while the state <br />regulation used the term "solely." Consequently, the department disallowed <br />the permit. <br /> Lamar sued, and the court ruled in favor of the department. <br /> Lamar appealed, arguing the purpose of the city's ~ant of the special use <br />permit was not "solely" for the purpose of erecting the billboard because it was <br />conditioned on the removal of a billboard at another location. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> Lamar was not entitled to a signpermit. <br /> The department's regulations were to be construed in harmony with the <br />federal regulations. Consequently, the department could deny a permit where a <br />zoning action was. taken primarily for the purpose of erecting a billboard. <br /> The department had not certified the city's zoning plan as comprehensive. <br />The language of the Ordinance ~anting the special use permit provided the <br />purpose of the ordinance was to allow the erection of a billboard, indicating the <br /> <br />special use permit was primarily for <br />the purpose of erecting a billboard. <br /> <br />Citarior~: Lamar O,~rdoor <br />Adverrisi~g b~c. v. Arkansas Stare <br />Highway & Transportation <br />Deparame~,r, Court of Appeals of <br />Ar/cansas, Div. 2, N~), CA 02-,~70 <br />(2003). <br />see al~ro: TomertiJ* v. Nickotich, <br />27 S. V~:3d 746 ('2000). <br /> <br />see also' Files v. Arka~sas State <br />PJi.ghway & D'aJ,sporrario~ Dept., <br />925 S. W.£d 404 t i996). <br /> <br />114 <br /> <br /> <br />