Reagan Wins Rebuild Case in Indiana

On September 25, 2023 the Indiana Supreme court ruled in favor of Reagan Outdoor Advertising in a sign rebuild dispute with Noblesville, Indiana.  Here are the facts of the case.

  • Reagan owned a non-conforming billboard in Noblesville.  The Noblesville ordinance required non-conforming billboards to be kept in good repair and not relocated.
  • A Storm damaged the billboard support posts.  Reagan attached new posts 18-36 inches behind the existing posts and attached the billboard to the new posts.  The Noblesville department of planning issued a stop work notice saying that Reagan did not have a valid permit to install the sign and had relocated the sign by moving it 18-36 inches.
  • A lower court sided with Reagan and an appeals court reversed the decision so Reagan asked the Indiana Supreme court to review.
  • The Indiana Supreme Court found in favor of Reagan.  The court affirmed a lower court’s opinion that moving the posts was maintenance so did not need a permit because the Noblesville ordinance does not require a permit for maintenance work: “The board referenced Reagan’s lack of a permit in its appellate papers but did not explain why Reagan needed a permit.  The board simply insisted Reagan needed a permit to complete its work because Reagan was constructing a “new” sign, not “repairing” an old one.  Such bare assertions without legal support or briefing are insufficient.”
  • The Supreme Court also held that The Noblesville ordinance was ambiguous because it did not provide guidance on how far a sign must be moved before it is relocated: “Was Reagans “movement” of the posts 18 to 36 inches behind their original location enough to constitute a “relocation:?  The ordinance does not say…Thus “relocate is an ambiguous term.  This ambiguity compels us to find for Reagan.  Because zoning ordinances limit the free use of property and are in derogation of common law, we construe any such ambiguity to favor the free use of land.”

Billboard Insider’s take:  Sometimes overzealous planning employees like to argue that you need a permit for everything.  The ordinance should decide.  If it says no permit is needed for maintenance, no permit is needed for maintenance.

 

To receive a free morning newsletter with each day’s Billboard insider articles email info@billboardinsider.com with the word “Subscribe” in the title.  Our newsletter is free and we don’t sell our subscriber list.


Paid Advertisement

One Comment

  1. Dave,

    I don’t think you will ever find an ordinance that states, “No permit is needed for maintenance.” So, the wording of your last paragraph should be something like this: “If the ordinance does not state a permit is required for maintenance, no permit is needed.”

    I’m in a picky mood this morning. LOL!

    Jim