Lamar Advertising of South Dakota, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
822 N.W.2d 861
S.D.2012Background
- Lamar applied to convert six off-premise billboards to digital signs in Rapid City.
- Solon denied permits pursuant to a view that off-premise alterations require a conditional use permit under Title 17.50.380.
- Lamar appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, which upheld the denial.
- Lamar alleged City practice allowed similar alterations previously and sought estoppel; claimed denial was arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction.
- City argued Lamar knew CUP would be required since a 2010 denial for two signs and that off-premise signs are a conditional use under City Code 17.18.030.
- Issues centered on whether Sign Code provisions 15.28.040 and 15.28.240, and a 2006 CUP for a different sign, governed the alterations; city’s 2011 digital-sign ban did not apply to Lamar due to timing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City acted irregularly in denying permits for alterations to existing signs | Lamar; City allowed prior alterations without CUP and estoppel applies | City; alterations require CUP under Sign/City Codes | Yes; City acted irregularly in applying CUP requirement to Lamar's alterations |
| Interpretation of Sign Code 15.28.240 regarding non-conforming signs | Alterations of legal non-conforming signs fall under 15.28.240(B) and must comply with the Sign Code | The phrase 'this code' means City Code; CUP required | Sign Code governs; 15.28.240(B) allows alterations if brought into Sign Code compliance, City erred in requiring CUP |
| Effect of 2006 CUP and scope of conditional use approvals | Existing CUP did not limit number of digital faces; 2006 conditions did not restrict alterations | CUP authorizes only what was conditioned; alterations require amendment | City acted beyond authority by denying the requested alteration without CUP amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Esling v. Krambeck, 2003 S.D. 59, 663 N.W.2d 671 (2003 S.D. 59) (review of certiorari limited to jurisdiction and regular pursuit of authority; de novo ordinance interpretation required)
- Ridley v. Lawrence Cnty. Comm’n, 2000 S.D. 143, 619 N.W.2d 254 (2000 S.D. 143) (de novo interpretation of ordinances; governing principle for reviewing ordinances)
- Jensen v. Turner Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 2007 S.D. 28, 730 N.W.2d 411 (2007 S.D. 28) (statutory interpretation and standard for adjustment decisions)
- City of Rapid City v. Anderson, 2000 S.D. 77, 612 N.W.2d 289 (2000 S.D. 77) (approach to construe municipal ordinances and identify true intent)