In this intеrlocutory appeal, we granted defendant leave to appeal a partial grant of summary disposition, in which the trial court held that the Highway Advertising Act (HAA), MCL 252.301 et seq., did not preempt two of plaintiffs billboard ordinances. One ordinance prohibited “сross-reader” billboards, which are two-sided billboards displaying advertising to highway traffic traveling in both directions. Defendant added a sеcond face to an existing billboard, contrary to the permit issued by plaintiff, in the belief that plaintiffs ban on cross-reader billboards violated the HAA. Flaintiff later enacted the second ordinance, which prohibited new off-premises billboards. Flaintiff seеks an injunction requiring removal of the second billboard face and its associated structural components. On cross- *502 appeal, plaintiff also contends that defendant lacks standing to challenge the ordinances. We affirm in part, reversе in part, and remand for further proceedings.
A grant or denial of summary disposition is reviewed de novo on the basis of the entirе record to determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Maiden v Rozwood,
“[A] municipal ordinance is preempted by state lаw if 1) the statute completely occupies the field that ordinance attempts to regulate, or 2) the ordinance dirеctly conflicts with a state statute.”
Rental Prop Owners Ass’n of Kent Co v Grand Rapids,
*503
We have held that the HAA expressly occupies the whole field of regulation and control of off-premises billboards, but only precluded local regulation of signs in adjacent аreas “where the facing of the sign is visible from an interstate highway, freeway or primary highway.”
Dingeman Advertising, Inc v Saginaw Twp,
This plain and unambiguous language of the opening sentence of MCL 252.304 mandates the cоnclusion we reached in
Central Advertising Co.
Under the last antecedent rule,
“that
regulation and control” must refer to “regulat[ing] and control[ing] the size, lighting, and spacing of signs and sign structures in аdjacent areas.” See
Stanton v Battle Creek,
The ordinances at issue fall outside the scope of the intended preemption in the HAA and do not conflict with the HAA’s regulatory scheme. The two ordinances prohibit cross-reader signs and new off-premises bill
*504
boards, respectively. Neither facially regulates size, lighting, or spacing of billboards in adjacent аreas. Furthermore, the HAA’s prohibition against ordinances allowing signs that are “otherwise prohibited” constitutes a prohibition against
expanding
uses. It follows that the HAA sets forth minimum requirements that a township cannot fall below, but that a township is free to exceed. Thus, the tоwnship may enact ordinances that are more restrictive than required by the HAA. Therefore, the ordinances are both outside the scope of the HAA’s regulatory scheme and would in any event be permitted under an explicit exception. Furthermore, plaintiffs ban on new billboards is not a
total
ban and is therefore permissible.
Adams Outdoor Advertising, Inc v Holland,
On cross-appeal, plaintiff argues that defendant lacks standing to challengе the ordinances. We agree in part. Standing is a question of law that we review de novo.
Lee v Macomb Co Bd of Comm’rs,
The trial court erroneously stated that plaintiff had not challenged defendant’s standing to contest the ban on cross-reader billboards. Hоwever, defendant did not seek a variance from the cross-reader billboard ban when plaintiff denied it a permit to put thе second face on the sign structure. Instead, defendant installed the second sign face and only sought a variance after plaintiff had amended the ordinance to prohibit new billboards. Therefore, because defendant revised its *505 building permit request to seek a single-sign permit and because defendant never sought a variance allowing the cross-reader billboard tо be installed until after the ordinance had been completely revised, the court erred in finding that defendant had standing to challenge the ban on cross-reader billboards. However, defendant apparently did apply for a variance that wаs denied because of the amended ordinance, so the trial court did not err in finding that defendant had standing to challenge the revised billboard ordinance.
The trial court declined to address plaintiffs argument that its billboard ordinances are valid as a matter of law under
Cincinnati v Discovery Network, Inc,
The trial court’s conclusion that the HAA does not preempt the ordinances is affirmed. The trial court’s finding that defendant had standing to challenge the cross-reader billboard ban is reversed, and the trial court’s finding that defendant had standing to challenge the revised ordinance is affirmed. We remand for further proceedings.