Laserfiche WebLink
January 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 1 Zoning Bulletin <br />See also: Lindner v. Kindig, 285 Neb. 386, 826 N.W.2d 868 (2013). <br />See also: Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, <br />98 S. Ct. 2646, 57 L. Ed. 2d 631, 11 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1801, 8 <br />Envtl. L. Rep. 20528 (1978). <br />See also: Kraft & Sons, Inc. v. City of Lincoln, 182 Neb. 187, 153 <br />N.W.2d 725 (1967). <br />See also: Fougeron v. Seward County, 174 Neb. 753, 119 N.W.2d 298 <br />(1963). <br />Mootness/Billboards—City denies <br />billboard company's application for <br />a special use permit for billboard <br />Billboard company contends city's denial was <br />arbitrary and capricious <br />Citation: Dakota Outdoor Advertising, LLC v. City of Bismarck, 2016 <br />ND 210, 886 N.W.2d 670 (N.D. 2016) <br />NORTH DAKOTA (11/9/16)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether a city's decision to deny a special use permit was arbitrary, <br />capricious, and unreasonable. Thecase also addressed the issue of <br />mootness of an appeal when the zoning regulations have changed in <br />the interim so as to prohibit the permit sought. <br />The Background/Facts: Dakota Outdoor Advertising, LLC ("Da- <br />kota") leased property in the City of Bismarck (the "City") with inten- <br />tions to erect a digital billboard on the property. Because the sign would <br />be digital and would be within 300 feet of a residential property, the <br />City's Code of Ordinances (the "City Ordinances") required Dakota to <br />obtain a special use permit before it could erect the sign. Dakota ap- <br />plied for a special use permit to erect the sign, and the City's Planning <br />and Zoning Commission (the "Commission') denied Dakota's <br />application. Dakota then appealed to the City's Board of Commission- <br />ers (the "Board"), which affirmed the Commission's decision. Dakota <br />again appealed to the district court, which affirmed the decision of the <br />Board. Dakota once again appealed. <br />On appeal, Dakota argued that the Board's decision to deny it a <br />special use permit for its billboard was "arbitrary, capricious, and <br />unreasonable." Under the City Ordinances in effect at the time of ap- <br />plication, a special use permit for the placement of a digital billboard <br />had to meet three requirements. The first two requirements were found <br />to be met here. The last requirement —that the special use permit must <br />6 ©2017 Thomson Reuters <br />