concluding that the power given to municipalities under a state statute to “regulate” billboards was sufficiently broad to convey the power to “prohibit” certain types of billboards, where the statute vested the city with “‘broad authority’” to regulate land uses
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the power given to municipalities under a state statute to “regulate” billboards was sufficiently broad to convey the power to “prohibit” certain types of billboards, where the statute vested the city with “‘broad authority’” to regulate land uses
- “Zoning is fundamentally the control of land use, of which the regulation of buildings, signs, or other structures attached to the land is only a part.”
- defining “zoning ordinance” as “[a] city ordinance that regulates the use to which land within various parts of the city may be put”
- "We do not doubt that off-site billboards pose a significant threat to public safety and the general welfare."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CAMERON, Justice,
dissenting:
I regret that I must dissent. I do so for three reasons. First, I do not believe that the government may require the removal of a legal (albeit preexisting and non-conforming) billboard as a condition for a zoning change or issuance of a building permit. To require the landowner to give up what he is legally permitted to have in order to obtain what he may already be entitled to, is bureaucratic extortion, if not judicial extortion.
Second, I object to the sweeping statement “[t]hat billboards pose a significant threat to public safety and the general welfare cannot be doubted.” On the con *311 trary, I have my doubts. Admittedly, much depends on the time and place. An unusually animated billboard may be distracting to a driver, but no more than children, members of the opposite sex or cattle in a pasture. I find nothing in the evidence below to support the statement that billboards pose a significant threat to safety or the general welfare.
Finally, I believe “existing property” as used in the UEMA refers to the billboard itself as opposed to the land surrounding it, as the majority maintains. Therefore, because appellants have not changed the use of the existing property, they are still entitled to protection under UEMA § 9-462.02