Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016

Home

i August 10 2016 1 Volume 10 Issue 15 Zoning Bulletin E promote aesthetic qualities and traffic safety and,therefore,was reason- ably related to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community; and did not treat International Outdoor differently than any other similarly situated person or entity. The circuit court granted summary disposition in favor of the City. International Outdoor appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Michigan held that the City's zoning r ordinance banning all new billboards in the City did not: (1) violate Michigan's cormnon-law principles that a municipality may not wholly prohibit a lawful business or lawful land use; (2) did not violate the equal protection clause of Michigan's Constitution; and (3) did not violate Michigan's statutory prohibition against exclusionary zoning under MCL 125.3207. The court acknowledged that, under Michigan common-law prin- ciples, "a community cannot effectively zone out legal businesses." However,the court found that International Outdoor failed to show that the City ordinance banning new billboards did, in fact, "zone out" a legal business. The court noted that the ban on erecting new billboards did not prevent advertisers who use billboards in their course of busi- ness from soliciting and serving clients with businesses within the City's jurisdiction or performing the day-to-day operations of their businesses j within the City limits. It only prohibited the actual construction of new billboards inside City borders. Moreover, noted the court, the City's ordinance did not, on its face, totally prohibit all billboards; it specifi- cally allowed for the grandfathering of billboards lawfully in existence at the time the ordinance was enacted. With regard to International Outdoor's equal protection claims, the court explained that when a zoning ordinance totally excludes a particu- lar use recognized by Michigan law, the burden is on the municipality to establish the reasonableness of the ordinance. Here, the court found that the City zoning ordinance prohibiting new billboards survived International Outdoors' equal protection challenge because it reason- ably advanced a legitimate governmental interest.Here,the court found that the City had shown the primary rationales for the billboard restric- tions in the City's zoning ordinance were"promoting aesthetic features, including the prevention of visual blight, and reducing traffic hazards for motorists." The court found that each of those factors constituted a legitimate governmental interest in regulating billboards. Thus, concluded the court,because the City demonstrated that its ban on new billboards specifically was related to both aesthetic and traffic safety concerns, which are reasonable governmental interests rationally re- lated to a total ban on new, off-premises billboards, International Ou- tdoor's equal protection claim must fail. 10 ©2016 Thomson Reuters