Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin January 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 2 MISSOURI (12/06/16)—This case addressed -the issue of whether an agree- ment prohibiting a city from enforcing its billboard ordinance was void ab initio (i.e., of no legal effect). The Background/Facts: The Lamar Company ("Lamar") is an outdoor advertising company. In 1999, Lamar acquired Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. ("Whiteco"), another outdoor advertising company. Prior to its acquisition, Whiteco had been involved in a legal dispute with the City of Columbia (the "City") with regard to four applications for permits to erect new billboards in the City. That legal dispute was resolved with in a May 1998 Stipulation for Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") between Whiteco and the City. Pur- suant to that Agreement, among other things, the City agreed to issue permits for three new billboards subject only to compliance with City's electrical and wind load requirements and state statutes. Whiteco and the City also agreed that 42 of Whiteco's billboards (39 existing billboards and the three new billboards promised by the Agreement) would be subject to a "cap and replace" agreement. Whiteco would be permitted to rebuild in the same location, or remove and relocate to a new location, any of the 42 billboards identified in the Agreement, subject only to compliance with state statutes and City wind load and electrical requirements. Whiteco could apply to build additional billboards beyond the 42 described in the Agreement, but those applications would be subject to compliance with the City's then existing billboard ordinance. As Whiteco's successor, Lamar assumed Whiteco's rights and obligations under the Agreement. In May 2014, Lamar applied for permits to either rebuild in the same location, or to remove and relocate to new locations, eight of the 42 billboards described in the Agreement. The City denied the applications because the proposed billboards did not meet the requirements of City's billboard ordinance. Lamar appealed those denials. Lamar argued that the Agreement exempted permits to replace any of the 42 signs from the City's billboard ordinance. Lamar maintained that the Agreement required the City to approve its applications. The City denied Lamar's request for an appeal. Lamar then sued the City. Among other things, Lamar sought a declaratory judgment that the Agreement was valid and enforceable, and entitled Lamar to the permits for which it had applied. The City asserted an affirmative defense that the Agreement was void ab initio (i.e. without legal effect) because "it impermissibly contracted away [the] City's police powers." Lamar responded that the City, which had benefitted from the Agreement, was equitably estopped from denying the validity and enforceability of the Agreement. The trial court held that the Agreement violated Missouri statutory law, RSMo § 432.0709, because it exceeded the scope of the City's powers by contracting away the City's police powers. The court concluded that the Agree- ment was therefore void ab initio. The court further concluded that the doc- trine of equitable estoppel, argued by Lamar, could not be relied on to enforce a void municipal contract. Finding no material issues of fact, and deciding the © 2017 Thomson Reuters 3