|
Published: July 7, 2008
Authors:
Peter Conrad and
Charles (Buck) Sweeney
State law does not necessarily trump a contradictory and more restrictive local zoning ordinance. In 2008, The Court of Appeals decided that the Town of Spring Valley's zoning ban on state highway directional signs is enforceable, even though the more lax state law permits such signs.
Mr. Donaldson sought to build a private billboard on his property. His Spring Valley property is zoned agricultural and runs along a state highway. Town ordinance bans directional signs such as billboards on agricultural land. However, even though Wisconsin law prohibits most highway signs, directional signs are allowed if they are authorized by law and comply with governmental transportation standards. Mr. Donaldson and the Town disagreed on whether state or local law should be applied.
Mr. Donaldson challenged the Town's zoning ordinance in Rock County Circuit Court. He argued three points to support authorizing his proposed sign. First, his proposed sign is allowed under state law. Second, because the sign would not be allowed under local ordinance, the ordinance conflicts with state law. Third, state law trumps local ordinances whenever they conflict. Thus, he argued that state law should be given priority over the Town's more restrictive zoning ordinance, and his billboard should be approved. The circuit court agreed, ruling that the Town must allow a directional sign along a state highway if it is authorized under state law.
The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court decision. The court agreed that were it not for the Town ordinance, the sign would be allowed under state law. However, the court ruled that under the state statute's wording, a sign must both be authorized by law and comply with governmental transportation standards. The town's ordinance is local law. Therefore, because the sign was not authorized under the Town's zoning ordinance, it was not authorized by law. Thus, Mr. Donaldson's sign is not permitted because it was not authorized law, even though it complied with transportation standards.
The court clarified that state statute would not trump a local ordinance just because one law permits an activity that the other prohibits. However, the court explained that if both laws are in direct conflict because they impose contradictory standards, such as allowing different maximum billboard size, then state law might trump local ordinance.
Under this ruling, a municipality may enforce an ordinance which regulates directional signs more restrictively than state law alone. However, because this decision is supported by the specific wording of the applicable state law, it is unlikely to be broadly extended to other zoning regulations.
For more information, contact Peter Conrad at 608.260.2483, pconrad@axley.com or Buck Sweeney at 608.260.2743, csweeney@axley.com. The authors thank Alxey Brynelson law clerk, Wes Taylor, for his assistance in drafting this article.
Axley Brynelson is pleased to provide articles, legal alerts, podcasts and videos for informational purposes, but we are not giving legal advice or creating an attorney/client relationship by providing this information. The law constantly changes, and our publications may not be currently updated. Before relying on any legal information of a general nature, please consult legal counsel as to your particular situation. While our attorneys welcome your comments and questions, keep in mind that any information you provide us, unless you are now a client, will not be confidential.
|
