Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2018

Home

December 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 23 Zoning Bulletin procedures of Utah's Eminent Domain Statutes (Utah Code sections 78B-6- 501 through 522). The Background/Facts: CBS Outdoor, LLC ("CBS") owned a billboard in Salt Lake City (the "City"). Its billboard was located on land that CBS leased from Corner Property, L.C. ("Corner Property"). In the fall of 2014, CBS's lease from Corner Property was about to expire, so CBS sought to relocate its billboard. CBS submitted a billboard relocation request to the City. The City's mayor made the decision to deny CBS's request to relocate the billboard. ' CBS appealed that denial. Among other things, CBS argued that the denial was "illegal" because, in denying CBS's billboard request, the City "invoked the power of eminent domain to effect a physical taking of CBS's billboard without complying with the procedural requirements that constrain the use of eminent domain." In particular, CBS asserted that under Utah's Billboard Compensation Statute (Utah Code section 10-9a-513), the denial of a billboard relocation request by a municipality constitutes a physical taking of the billboard, which requires compliance with the eminent domain procedures of Utah's Eminent Domain Statutes (Utah Code sections 78B-6-501 through 522). CBS contended that the City's denial of its billboard request illegally failed to comply with the eminent domain procedures of Utah's Eminent Domain Statutes, which provide that "[p]roperty may not be taken by a politi- cal subdivision of the state unless the governing body of the political subdivi- sion approves the taking." Here, the "governing body" was the City Council, and the City Council did not participate in the decision to deny CBS's reloca- tion request; the decision was made by the City's mayor alone. The City maintained, however, that the Eminent Domain Statutes do not apply to billboard relocation denials. Pointing to the texts of the Billboard Relocation Statute and the Billboard Compensation'Statute, the City noted that neither incorporated the Eminent Domain Statutes by explicit textual reference. Utah's Billboard Relocation Statute provides, in relevant part, that a municipality may agree to relocation of a billboard. The Billboard Compensa- tion Statute provides, in pertinent part that "[a] municipality is considered to have initiated the acquisition of a billboard structure by eminent domain if the municipality prevents a billboard owner from . relocating a billboard into any commercial, industrial, or manufacturing zone within the municipality's boundaries, if [certain spacing requirements are met]; and . . . the billboard owner has submitted a written request under Subsection 10-9a-511(3)(c); and . . . the municipality and billboard owner are unable to agree, within the time provided in Subsection 10-9a-511(3)(c), to a mutually acceptable location[.]" In other words, the Billboard Relocation Statute permits a municipality to agree to a billboard relocation request that would otherwise be prohibited by the city's zoning ordinance. However, if the city does not agree to a relocation request, and that request meets certain spacing requirements (which CBS' request here did), the city is "considered" under the Billboard Compensation Statute to have "initiated the acquisition of the billboard structure by eminent domain." The district court agreed with the City's arguments, and upheld the City's denial of CBS's relocation request. 8 © 2017 Thomson Reuters