Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department v. Lamar Advantage Holding Co.
381 S.W.3d 787
Ark.2011Background
- Lamar sought guidance on whether ASHTD permit was required for a billboard on the Innerplan building in Little Rock.
- ASHTD advised on June 21, 2005 that a state billboard permit would be required due to proximity to Highway 10.
- Lamar erected an electronic billboard in March 2007 without a permit; Lamar filed a permit application July 6, 2007.
- ASHTD denied Lamar’s permit on five grounds, including lack of complete application and zoning in PRD, residential location, and scenic corridor variance.
- Lamar requested a hearing; the hearing officer denied Lamar’s petition in 2009; circuit court later reversed the denial in 2010.
- ASHTD appeals, arguing denial was proper under federal/state beautification acts and regulations; Lamar argues exemption for comprehensively zoned area.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was a permit required under ASHTD regulations? | Lamar | ASHTD | Permit required |
| Does comprehensive zoning exempt Lamar from permit requirement? | Lamar exempt due to comprehensive zoning by Little Rock | Certification of comprehensive zoning required; not certified | Not exempt; no certification established comprehensive zoning |
| Is there substantial evidence supporting denial based on zoning | ASHTD denial supported by zoning classifications | Same | Yes; property zoned PRD requiring commercial/industrial zoning for permit |
| Did the local zoning arrangement meet federal/local control requirements to permit exemptions? | Lamar relies on local comprehensive zoning per agreement | Certification required; not shown | Certification not shown; exemption not available |
Key Cases Cited
- Seiz Co. v. Arkansas State Highway & Transp. Dep’t, 2009 Ark. 361 (Ark. 2009) (substantial evidence review for agency decisions)
- Arkansas State Highway Comm’n v. Roark, 309 Ark. 265 (Ark. 1992) (liberally construed Highway Beautification Act)
- Files v. Arkansas State Highway & Transp. Dep’t, 325 Ark. 291 (Ark. 1996) (remedial interpretation of the Act)
- State of Louisiana v. Joint Pipeline Grp., 2010 Ark. 374 (Ark. 2010) (standard for substantial evidence review)