Plaintiff vs Defendant

Adams Outdoor Advertising v City of Holland
463 Mich 675 (2001)
Issue: Authority to regulate billboards
Billboards
9
Background:
Adams Outdoor Advertising applied for a permit
to construct a new billboard on a right of way in
Holland. The city rejected the application saying
that billboards were not permitted under two new
sections of its zoning ordinance. Adams sued the
city challenging the provisions as invalid under the
Home Rule City Act (HRCA) and the City and Village
Zoning Act (CVZA).
The first section of Holland’s ordinance provides
that “billboards and advertising signs are not
permitted.” The second states that “nonconforming
signs, billboards or advertising signs may not be
expanded, enlarged, or extended; however, said
signs may be maintained and repaired so as to
continue the useful life of the signs.” The circuit
court found that the provisions violated both the
HRCA and the CVZA. Section 4i(f) of the HRCA
indicates that a city may provide in its charter for
the “licensing, regulating, restricting, and limiting the
number and locations of billboards within the city.”
Section 4i(c) authorizes a city to provide zoning
powers in its charter. Section 12 of the CVZA
prohibits exclusionary zoning. The Michigan Court
of Appeals reversed the decision of the circuit court
and found in favor of Holland.

Why did the LDF get involved?
At issue was the extent to which a city may exclude
new billboards within its jurisdiction.
What action did the LDF take?
Filed an amicus brief with the Michigan Supreme
Court
What was the outcome?
The Michigan Supreme Court reasoned that because
the ordinance provisions did not completely ban
billboards, they were not invalid under the CVZA.
The Court found that the sections were valid as
enacted under the CVZA. The Court did not address
the claim under the HRCA. As a result, the city’s
ordinance was upheld.
Who prepared the amicus brief?
Gerald A. Fisher (Secrest, Wardle, Lynch, Hampton,
Truex and Morley)
Thomas R. Schultz (Secrest, W