Case Title: Studio 205, Inc. v. City of Brewton

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1051801

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 04/13/2007 - Studio 205 v. Brewton
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
242-4621), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2006-2007
____________________
1051801
____________________
Studio 205, Inc.
v.
City of Brewton
Appeal from Escambia Circuit Court 
(CV-04-341)
STUART, Justice.
Studio 205, Inc. ("Studio 205"), appeals from the trial
court's denial of its petition seeking to enjoin the City of
Brewton ("Brewton") from removing five billboards belonging to
Studio 
205 
that 
allegedly 
violated 
Brewton's 
zoning
1051801
2
ordinances.  Initially, the trial court entered a temporary
restraining order prohibiting Brewton from removing the
billboards.  However, at the conclusion of a bench trial, the
trial court entered a final order denying the petition for a
permanent injunction as to four of the five billboards.
Brewton does not cross-appeal as to that part of the trial
court's order enjoining Brewton from removing one of the five
billboards.
Facts
Studio 205 owns five outdoor off-premises signs, i.e.,
billboards, located within the police jurisdiction of Brewton.
Each sign consists of three vertical poles inserted into the
ground, two horizontal 2 x 6 wooden boards ("stringers"),
which are 24 feet long and attached to the vertical poles, and
the sign-message board ("the face").  The face consists of
light-gauge metal panels attached to the stringers by clips.
The five billboards had been in place for approximately 30
years at the time the present litigation began.  In 1992,
Brewton adopted a zoning ordinance regulating such signs; the
ordinance "grandfathered" in existing signs, such as those
belonging to Studio 205, even though they did not conform to
1051801
3
the size or location requirements of the ordinance.  The
ordinance provided that the nonconforming signs could remain
in place unless they were "destroyed" or became "fifty (50)
percent or more structurally deteriorated as determined by the
building inspector."  The ordinance provided that, if either
of those events occurred, any replacement sign would be
required to conform to the size and location requirements of
the ordinance.  
In September 2004, Studio 205's billboards were damaged
by Hurricane Ivan.  Thereafter, Studio 205 rebuilt the signs
without obtaining a permit from Brewton.  Brewton requested
that Studio 205 remove the rebuilt signs because Brewton
believed that the repairs to the signs were in violation of
the ordinance.  However, Studio 205 believed that the signs
had not been "destroyed" or "fifty (50) percent or more
structurally deteriorated" and, thus, that the signs were
still within the grandfathering provision and exempt from the
size and location requirements of the ordinance.  
All the billboards the trial court declared to be
"destroyed" or "fifty (50) percent or more structurally
deteriorated" had had the entire face and at least one
1051801
4
stringer replaced as a result of the damage caused by
Hurricane Ivan.  Three of the billboards had had one of the
vertical poles replaced.  Brewton's building inspector
testified that, in his opinion, the signs had either been
destroyed 
or 
been 
rendered 
50 
percent 
structurally
deteriorated as a result of the hurricane damage.  He
testified that he calculated the percentage of structural
deterioration to an entire sign by assigning 45% to the face,
10% to the stringers, and 45% to the poles and then
determining the percentage of structural deterioration to each
part.  He also testified that his definition of "destroyed"
included extensive damage, including "pieces of the sign
laying on the ground," but he did not believe that something
had to be beyond repair to be "destroyed."
Standard of Review
The parties dispute the standard of review this Court
should apply on appeal.  Brewton argues that whether the
billboards were "destroyed" or became "fifty (50) percent or
more 
structurally 
deteriorated" 
is 
purely 
a 
factual
determination and, thus, that the trial court's decision
enjoys a presumption of correctness on appeal.  However, it
1051801
5
appears that Studio 205 is not attempting to appeal based on
any factual determinations made by the trial court, but is
arguing only that the trial court misinterpreted the zoning
ordinance.  The trial court's interpretation of the provisions
of a statute or an ordinance is a determination of law, which
is not entitled to a presumption of correctness on appeal.
Clark v. Houston County Comm'n, 507 So. 2d 902, 903 (Ala.
1987).  
Issue and Analysis
Studio 205 contends that the trial court misinterpreted
the ordinance, which allows nonconforming signs in existence
on the date the ordinance was adopted to continue to exist as
nonconforming 
signs 
subject 
to 
certain 
conditions.
Specifically, Studio 205 argues that its billboards were not
"destroyed" or "fifty (50) percent or more structurally
deteriorated" and, thus, that Studio 205 was not required to
rebuild the signs in conformance with the ordinance.  Studio
205 explicitly states that, unlike similar cases decided by
this Court, Studio 205 is not arguing that the terms of the
ordinance are unconstitutionally vague.
The ordinance provides:
1051801
6
"§ 10.72. Nonconforming Signs.  Any sign in
existence on the date of adoption of this ordinance
that is not in conformance with the requirements of
this ordinance shall be considered a nonconforming
sign and shall be permitted to continue to exist
subject to the following conditions:
"If any nonconforming sign is removed or destroyed
or becomes fifty (50) percent or more structurally
deteriorated 
as 
determined 
by 
the 
building
inspector, then the replacement sign shall be in
conformance 
with 
the 
requirements 
of 
this
ordinance."
(Emphasis added.)
The ordinance does not define the terms "destroyed" or
"fifty (50) percent or more structurally deteriorated," but
the ordinance does define what constitutes a "sign."  A "sign"
is
"[a]ny words, lettering, parts of letters, figures,
numerals, phrases, sentences, emblems, devices,
designs, trade names, or marks, or combinations
thereof, by which anything is made known, such as
the designation of an individual, a firm, an
association, a profession, a business, a commodity,
or product which are visible from any public way and
used as an outdoor display, including any base or
supporting structure."
This Court has set forth the standard for interpreting
such ordinances, as follows:
"City ordinances are subject to the same general
rules 
of 
construction, 
as 
are 
acts 
of 
the
Legislature. S & S Distrib. Co. v. Town of New Hope,
334 So. 2d 905 (Ala. 1976). In John Deere Co. v.
1051801
7
Gamble, 523 So. 2d 95, 99-100 (Ala. 1988), this
Court, quoting Clark v. Houston County Comm'n, 507
So. 2d 902, 903-04 (Ala. 1987), set out the
following general rules of statutory construction,
which also apply to the construction of municipal
ordinances:
"'"The fundamental rule of statutory
construction is to ascertain and give
effect to the intent of the [city council]
in enacting the [ordinance]. Advertiser Co.
v. Hobbie, 474 So. 2d 93 (Ala. 1985);
League of Women Voters v. Renfro, 292 Ala.
128, 290 So. 2d 167 (1974). If possible,
the intent of the [city council] should be
gathered 
from 
the 
language 
of 
the
[ordinance] itself. Advertiser Co. v.
Hobbie, supra; Morgan County Board of
Education v. Alabama Public School &
College Authority, 362 So. 2d 850 (Ala.
1978). If the [ordinance] is ambiguous or
uncertain, 
the 
court 
may 
consider
conditions which might arise under the
provisions of the [ordinance] and examine
results that will flow from giving the
language in question one particular meaning
rather than another. Studdard v. South
Central Bell Telephone Co., 356 So. 2d 139
(Ala. 1978); League of Women Voters v.
Renfro, supra."'"
Ex parte City of Orange Beach Bd. of Adjustment, 833 So. 2d
51, 55-56 (Ala. 2001).
In the present case, this Court must ascertain and then
give effect to the intent of the Brewton City Council in
enacting the ordinance and providing for its enforcement.
This intent is clear on the face of the ordinance; thus, this
1051801
8
Court need not go beyond the language of the ordinance itself.
The ordinance unambiguously provides that the building
inspector has the discretion to decide whether a sign is
destroyed or 50 percent or more structurally deteriorated and
that, if either of those events occurred, then any replacement
sign must conform to the size and location requirements of the
ordinance.   
The trial court's interpretation of the ordinance was
correct.  The trial court relied on the building inspector's
testimony that the four billboards were either destroyed or 50
percent or more structurally deteriorated, including the
inspector's explanation of how he reached this decision; the
court then reviewed photographs of the billboards taken after
the hurricane damage to ensure that the inspector's decision
was not arbitrary or unreasonable in light of the language of
the ordinance.  This action by the trial court is fully
consistent with the intent of the Brewton City Council; thus,
it is a proper interpretation of the ordinance.
In its argument to this Court, Studio 205 never addresses
the discretion granted the building inspector by the
ordinance. 
 
Studio 
205's 
only 
argument 
concerns 
the
1051801
9
definitions of "destroyed" and "fifty (50) percent or more
structurally deteriorated."  Studio 205 argues that it is
unreasonable to construe the damage to its billboards as
falling within either of those terms.
The common meaning of the word "destroy" includes "to
ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of ...;
also: to ruin as if by tearing to shreds." Merriam-Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary 339 (11th ed. 2003).  In the present
case, it is undisputed that every billboard in question had,
at least, its face and stringers ruined.  According to the
definition of a "sign" given in the ordinance, the face and
stringers would constitute parts of the sign.  Therefore, a
decision by the building inspector that a sign is "destroyed"
based on the fact that the face and stringers are completely
ruined is not unreasonable, particularly in light of the
building inspector's testimony that the those parts constitute
55% of the structure.
With regard to whether the billboards were "fifty (50)
percent or more structurally deteriorated," Studio 205 makes
much of the adverb "structurally."  Studio 205 interprets the
insertion of the adverb to mean that the city council could
1051801
10
have been referring only to damage to the vertical poles that
support the face and stringers because, allegedly, "[i]mplicit
in the term 'structure' is the concept of a supporting
framework." (Studio 205's brief at p. 17.)  Studio 205 argues
that none of the damaged billboards could be 50 percent or
more structurally deteriorated because not more than one out
of the three vertical poles were destroyed on any one
billboard.  However, when the ordinance is viewed as a whole,
Studio 205's interpretation is 
far from the plainest
interpretation.  The ordinance states that "[i]f any
nonconforming sign ... becomes fifty (50) percent or more
structurally deteriorated ... then the replacement sign shall
be in conformance with the requirements of this ordinance."
The ordinance does not state that if any nonconforming
vertical 
supporting 
poles 
become 
50 
percent 
or 
more
structurally deteriorated then the replacement sign shall be
in conformance with the requirements of this ordinance.  The
ordinance specifically defines a "sign" to include not only
the supporting vertical poles, but also the face of the sign
and other structures that support the face (i.e., the
stringers).  Therefore, if all of these items viewed as a
1051801
11
whole become 50 percent or more structurally deteriorated then
the replacement sign must be constructed in conformance with
the size and location requirements of the ordinance.  This
interpretation appears to be the one applied by the building
inspector and accepted by the trial court, and it is the
plainest interpretation.  Therefore, Studio 205 has not set
forth any valid reason to reverse the trial court's judgment.
Conclusion
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Cobb, C.J., and Lyons, Bolin, and Murdock, JJ., concur.