Opinion ID: 6108256
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: grant of a variance allowing digital lettering on a monument sign was authorized by law

Text: Section 88-810 defines Sign Type as a group or class of signs that are  regulated, allowed or not allowed in this code as a group or class. It then lists and defines several possible sign types, such as monument signs, wall signs, digital signs, and electronic signs. Id. The BZA suggests it had no authority to grant the Church's request for a variance. In support, the BZA argues because digital signs are defined as signs having digital lettering, 5 this means the Church's addition of digital lettering to its monument sign must have changed the sign type from a monument sign to a digital sign. And, the BZA notes, section 88-445-12 prohibits it from granting a variance changing the sign type. The BZA concludes this means it was without authority to grant the Church a variance to add digital lettering to its monument sign. The Church counters that the type of lettering on a sign is not included in the zoning code's definition of what type of sign is a monument sign. It is correct. Section 88-810 defines a monument sign as a sign placed upon a base that rests upon the ground where the width of the base of the sign is a minimum of 75 percent of the width of the longest part of the sign. The Church's sign fit within this definition of monument sign both before and after the change in the lettering from manual to digital, for the zoning code's definition of monument sign does not include any language about what kind of lettering is required on a monument sign. It is a different section of the zoning code-section 88-445-06-A-4(a)-that prohibits any form of digital or electronic display on monument signs in residential areas. The digital lettering, not barred by the definition of monument sign, simply makes the Church's sign one that fails to comply with one of the other requirements a monument sign should meet. The BZA's narrower interpretation of what constitutes a monument sign appears to be premised on the belief a sign can be of only one sign type at a time, which would mean a monument sign, by definition, cannot include a digital display as the zoning code provides that a sign with a digital display is a digital sign. The language of the zoning code does not support the BZA's premise. This Court interprets ordinances using the same general rules of construction as are applicable to the statutes of the state. Fleming v. Moore Bros. Realty Co., 363 Mo. 305 , 251 S.W.2d 8 , 15 (Mo. 1952) . When interpreting a statute, no portion of [it] is read in isolation, but rather is read in context to the entire statute, harmonizing all provisions. Aquila Foreign Qualifications Corp. v. Dir. of Revenue, 362 S.W.3d 1 , 4 (Mo. banc 2012) . This means the definition of monument sign in section 88-810 must be harmonized with other sections of the zoning code. Looking at the zoning code as a whole, it is evident the sign types set out in the code are inherently overlapping. For example, section 88-445-06-A-4(b) includes wall signs among the type of signs allowed in residential areas but then regulates their use of digital lettering. While wall signs with digital lettering may fit within the definition of digital signs, the zoning code does not preclude them from also being wall signs. Similarly, section 88-445-08-A(3) of the zoning code recognizes monument signs may have digital lettering and remain monument signs. It provides that, in certain non-residential districts, Electronic,  digital, or motorized monument signs are permitted so long as they comply with certain additional requirements. Section 88-445-08-A(3) thereby expressly permits monument signs to have electronic, digital, or motorized components in non-residential districts. Addition of an electronic, digital, or motorized component, therefore, cannot preclude a sign from being of the monument sign type. See Briggs v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 680 S.W.2d 444 , 445 (Mo. App. 1984) (An adjective modifies a noun to denote a quality of the thing named, or to indicate its quantity or extent.) (emphasis added). To accept the BZA's argument that the addition of a digital component to a monument sign automatically converts the monument sign into solely a digital sign, this Court would have to ignore the language in section 88-445-08-A(3) acknowledging the existence of digital monument signs. For these reasons, the presence of digital lettering on a monument sign does not prevent the sign from continuing to be of the monument sign type, as the zoning code itself implicitly recognizes in section 88-445-08-A(3) by setting out requirements for digital lettering on monument signs in non-residential areas. While the zoning code provides monument signs located in residential zones cannot have digital lettering, the addition of a digital display to the Church's monument sign did not change its sign type. It remained a monument sign, albeit with an unpermitted digital display. The BZA therefore had the authority to grant the Church's request for a variance if other requirements were met.