Utah Court of Appeals
Can municipalities zone land for highway commercial use without violating Utah's Outdoor Advertising Act? Kunz & Company v. State of Utah, Dept. of Transportation Explained
Summary
This appeal arose from UDOT’s challenge to a trial court’s declaratory judgment that the Outdoor Advertising Act did not prohibit billboards on property zoned as highway commercial by Toquerville. On remand from a prior appeal (Kunz I), the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Toquerville’s zoning decision was made for the primary purpose of allowing outdoor advertising. The trial court found that because the zoning ordinance required conditional use permits for outdoor advertising and limited sign sizes, the primary purpose was not to facilitate billboards.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Kunz & Company v. State of Utah, Department of Transportation, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether municipal zoning decisions violate Utah’s Outdoor Advertising Act when they permit billboards in commercially zoned areas.
Background and Facts
Kunz’s predecessors obtained permits from UDOT for three billboards along Interstate 15 in property later annexed by Toquerville. UDOT initially revoked the permits due to improper zoning, but after Washington County rezoned the property as commercial, the matter proceeded through administrative proceedings. UDOT ultimately revoked the permits again, concluding the zoning change was primarily intended to allow outdoor advertising, which violates the Outdoor Advertising Act. After Toquerville annexed the property and retained the highway commercial zoning, Kunz sought declaratory relief that the signs complied with state law.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Toquerville’s designation of the property as “highway commercial” constituted zoning for the “primary purpose of allowing outdoor advertising” under Utah Code section 27-12-136.3(3), which would prohibit such advertising. The court also addressed UDOT’s challenges to the trial court’s factual findings and its application of the statutory framework.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals applied a clearly erroneous standard to the trial court’s factual findings and reviewed legal questions for correctness. The court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Toquerville’s zoning was not primarily for outdoor advertising purposes, noting that the zoning ordinance required conditional use permits for outdoor advertising signs and limited sign sizes. UDOT failed to marshal all supporting evidence or demonstrate the findings were clearly erroneous.
Practice Implications
This decision demonstrates that municipal zoning ordinances requiring conditional use permits and imposing size limitations on outdoor advertising signs provide strong evidence that the zoning was not primarily intended to facilitate billboards. Practitioners challenging such zoning decisions must thoroughly marshal supporting evidence and meet the demanding clearly erroneous standard for overturning factual findings on appeal.
Case Details
Case Name
Kunz & Company v. State of Utah, Dept. of Transportation
Citation
1997 UT App
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 970216-CA
Date Decided
November 28, 1997
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The trial court correctly applied Utah Code section 27-12-136.3(3) in determining that Toquerville’s highway commercial zoning was not for the primary purpose of allowing outdoor advertising.
Standard of Review
Clearly erroneous standard for findings of fact; correctness for questions of law
Practice Tip
When challenging zoning decisions under the Outdoor Advertising Act, carefully marshal all evidence supporting the trial court’s factual findings and demonstrate they are clearly erroneous, as appellate courts will not disturb findings based on adequate evidence.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.