331 Ga. App. 494
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Lamar owned a traditional poster billboard at 322 Mall Boulevard and obtained a permit (April 10, 2013) to convert it to a digital billboard.
- Golden Isles, a competitor, had applied to convert two billboards and sought the last available digital permits; Lamar’s permit consumed one of the limited slots under the ordinance.
- Savannah Code § 8-3112(c)(5)(e)(5) (the “arterial roadway restriction”) permits digital billboards "only along four lane or more arterial roadways as defined in subsection 8-3112(l)."
- Street classifications (collector vs. arterial) are set by Street Classification Map No. 1 incorporated via § 8-3025(g); Mall Boulevard is labeled a collector on that map.
- The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) concluded the ordinance contained a drafting error and rescinded Lamar’s permit, finding Mall Boulevard is a collector and thus not an arterial.
- The superior court reversed the ZBA, interpreting the cross-reference in § 8-3112(c)(5)(e)(5) to allow digital signs on four-lane collectors and arterials; the Court of Appeals reversed the superior court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Golden Isles) | Defendant's Argument (Lamar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of the arterial roadway restriction: whether “arterial roadway” as cross‑referenced to § 8-3112(l) includes collectors | The cross-reference should be read in context with zoning definitions and map; arterial means arterial (collectors excluded) so Mall Blvd (a collector on Map No. 1) is excluded | The cross-reference to § 8-3112(l) means digital billboards are allowed on any four‑lane collector or arterial because § 8-3112(l)(1) permits separate use signs on collector or arterial streets | The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court: the cross-reference does not redefine “arterial” to include collectors; it instead incorporates § 8-3112(l)’s conditions for separate use signs while preserving the arterial/collector distinction from the Street Classification Map |
| Harmonization with code and legislative intent | Ordinance should be read to harmonize with other sign provisions and the Street Classification Map; legislative history showed intent for digital billboards on four‑lane (major) arterials only | Lamar argued the plain cross-reference controls and is unambiguous | Court concluded harmonizing reading — treating the cross‑reference as importing § 8-3112(l)’s rules (height, distance, orientation) for signs on arterial roadways defined by the map — best effectuates legislative intent and avoids rendering “arterial” surplusage |
| Whether § 8-3112(l) provides a new definition of “arterial roadway” | Golden Isles: § 8-3112(l) does not define “arterial”; it only limits where separate use signs may be placed | Lamar: § 8-3112(l)(1)’s language shows the City intended the term to include collectors for this restriction | Court: § 8-3112(l) does not "define" arterial in the precise sense and cannot be used to collapse the distinct categories of arterial and collector |
| Whether trial court’s construction violated due process | Golden Isles did not press this; primary issue statutory construction | Lamar argued the restriction (if read to exclude collectors) violated due process | Court declined to address due process claim (Georgia Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional questions not ruled on below) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Atlanta v. Hotels.com, 289 Ga. 323 (review standard de novo for ordinance interpretation)
- Daniel Corp. v. Reed, 291 Ga. 596 (principles for construing municipal ordinances)
- Carringer v. Rodgers, 276 Ga. 359 (cardinal rule: ascertain legislative intent)
- Abdel-Samed v. Dailey, 294 Ga. 758 (consider entire ordinance context)
- Sikes v. State, 268 Ga. 19 (use legislative history when meaning is doubtful)
- Staley v. State, 284 Ga. 873 (avoid constructions yielding absurd results)
- Bo Fancy Productions v. Rabun County Bd. of Commrs., 267 Ga. 341 (zoning ordinances strictly construed for property owners but reasonably)
- Rock v. Head, 254 Ga. App. 382 (adopt more reasonable construction consistent with legislative intent)