Lamar Advertising sought to replace a billboard with an electronic sign. Lamar submitted an improvement location permit but the Planning Commission denied it due to an ordinance that restricted billboard displays. The Board of Zoning Appeals affirmed the denial stating that the permit would injure the general welfare of the community because the proposed billboard would have posted up to seven panel equivalents and the ordinance only allowed for one poster panel. Lamar appealed to the trial court, which reversed the Board of Zoning Appeals decision.
The Board of Zoning Appeals filed an appeal. The plain meaning of the ordinance in question indicated that only one panel was to be posted at a time but the ordinance language implied that the same one panel could rotate or change. The Court determined that the plain meaning did not suggest that only one panel was as restrictive to mean that only one item may be on the billboard for an indefinite period of time. This restrictive interpretation would be “impractical” and “illogical.” The Court determined that the Board of Zoning Appeals incorrectly interpreted the ordinance and as such, affirmed the trial court’s decision which approved Lamar’s permit.
Porter County Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Lamar Advertising N.W. Indiana, 2010 WL 4962920 (Ind. App. 12/7/2010)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/12071003mgr.pdf
