Noblesville Indiana Board of Zoning Appeals v. FMG Indianapolis, LLC, 217 N.E.3d 510

Reagan Outdoor Advertising owned three preexisting pole-sign billboards in Noblesville; the city ordinance bans pole signs but preserves preexisting signs as legal nonconforming uses so long as they are kept in good repair and not "relocated."
A 2020 storm snapped/splintered a billboard’s support posts; Reagan removed the display, cut the old posts at ground level, and installed new posts 18–36 inches behind the original holes to repair the sign.
Noblesville’s planning department issued a stop-work order and notice of violation, asserting Reagan lacked a permit and had "relocated" the sign, thereby forfeiting its nonconforming status; the BZA affirmed.
The trial court reversed the BZA, holding the repair did not constitute relocation and granting declaratory relief and costs; the court of appeals reversed. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
The Supreme Court held the ordinance’s use of "relocate" is ambiguous as applied here, construed the ambiguity in Reagan’s favor, found the BZA’s interpretation contrary to law, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment (including declaratory relief and costs).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Reagan)	Defendant's Argument (BZA/Noblesville)	Held
Whether moving posts 18–36 inches "relocated" the sign and voided nonconforming status	The small, repair-driven movement was maintenance, not a "relocation"; term is ambiguous and should be construed for the owner	Any change in location is a relocation; moving posts to a new spot forfeits nonconforming status	"Relocate" ambiguous; construed in Reagan’s favor — no relocation, BZA decision reversed
Whether Reagan needed a permit to replace posts	Repairs were maintenance under sign rules and did not require a permit	Replacement created a "new" sign requiring a permit	BZA’s permit argument was inadequately briefed and waived on appeal; court did not decide the permit issue on the merits
Whether trial court could award declaratory relief and costs after judicial-review proceedings	Declaratory relief and costs were proper to preserve prospective nonconforming status and allow completion of repairs	Judicial-review statutes are the exclusive remedy; court lacked authority to grant declaratory relief/costs	Declaratory relief and costs permitted; trial court’s award affirmed to preserve Reagan’s uninterrupted nonconforming status

St. Charles Tower, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Evansville-Vanderburgh Cnty., 873 N.E.2d 598 (Ind. 2007) (treats zoning boards as administrative agencies and discusses deference)
Ind. Off. of Util. Consumer Couns. v. S. Ind. Gas & Elec. Co., 200 N.E.3d 915 (Ind. 2023) (sets standards of review for agency decisions)
Hoosier Outdoor Advert. Corp. v. RBL Mgmt., Inc., 844 N.E.2d 157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (discusses weight to give agency interpretations of ordinances)
Story Bed & Breakfast, LLP v. Brown Cnty. Area Plan Comm'n, 819 N.E.2d 55 (Ind. 2004) (ambiguous zoning ordinances construed in favor of property owners)
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. v. Town of Plainfield, 848 N.E.2d 285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (zoning ordinances limit property use and are strictly construed)
Anderson v. Gaudin, 42 N.E.3d 82 (Ind. 2015) (defines when a statute or ordinance is ambiguous)