Adams Outdoor Advertising, L.P. v. County of Dane
811 N.W.2d 421
Wis. Ct. App.2012Background
- Dane County appeals a circuit court ruling that Town of Madison's billboard ordinance under Wis. Stat. § 60.23(29) preempts the County's billboard regulation under Wis. Stat. § 59.69.
- Adams Outdoor Advertising erected a billboard in the Town of Madison, Dane County, after obtaining Town and DOT permits but not a County zoning permit.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment for Adams, holding the Town ordinance preempts the County ordinance.
- County argues that under § 59.69(4) (and § 59.69(1)) it may regulate billboards and that the Town ordinance does not preempt its authority.
- Court holds that a town with a county-approved zoning ordinance may coexist with a county billboard regulation, and the Town's § 60.23(29) ordinance does not preempt the County's § 59.69-based ordinance.
- The Town and County share regulation over billboards in the Town of Madison; Adams Outdoor Advertising must comply with the County ordinance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do counties have billboard authority under § 59.69(4)? | Adams: county authority limited to § 59.70(22). | Dane County: § 59.69(4) and (1) authorize regulation of structures, including billboards. | Yes; county may regulate billboards under § 59.69(4). |
| Does a town ordinance enacted under § 60.23(29) preempt a county ordinance enacted under § 59.69(4)? | Adams: town ordinance preempts county ordinance. | Dane County: no preemption where town approved county ordinance. | Town ordinance does not preempt the county ordinance. |
| Does the interaction of §§ 59.69(5) and 60.23(29) permit coexistence when town boards approve county zoning? | Adams: town approval invalidates county regulation in town. | Dane County: approval allows county ordinance to be in effect in town; statutes complement each other. | Coexistence is permitted; town approval does not negate county regulation. |
| Is § 59.70(22) applicable to these facts where the town maintains roadways? | Adams: § 59.70(22) would preempt or override county action. | Dane County: § 59.70(22) does not apply because town maintains roadways here. | Not applicable under these facts; § 59.70(22) not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Willow Creek Ranch, L.L.C. v. Town of Shelby, 235 Wis.2d 409 (Wis. 2000) (supports broad county zoning authority under § 59.69)
- State v. Bleck, 114 Wis.2d 454 (Wis. 1983) (defines 'structure' in statutory context)
- Kalal v. Kalal, 271 Wis.2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation framework and plain meaning)
- Estate of Genrich v. OHIO Insurance Co., 318 Wis.2d 553 (Wis. 2009) (one-statutory-interpretation rule discussed; not controlling here)