Gosman v. Prince George's County

MacD aniel, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1977 the appellee, Prince George’s County, brought a Petition for Injunctive Relief in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to enforce an order of the Zoning Inspection Division of the Prince George’s County Department of Licenses and Permits against the appellant, Francis H. Gosman, t/a Dawnrose Dipper. The order required the appellant to remove a sign allegedly in violation of the Prince George’s County zoning ordinance. This appeal is from the circuit court’s decision dated June 15, 1978, to enforce that order.

The pertinent provisions of the Prince George’s County Code are as follows: “SEC. 27-101. DEFINITIONS. (134) Sign, Outdoor Advertising: Sign including billboard which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, entertainment, or other activity conducted, sold, or offered elsewhere than on the premises upon which the sign is located____” “SEC. 27-427. PURPOSE OF DIVISION.

For the purpose of promoting the health, safety, and general welfare; conserving the natural, landscaped, and improved scenery; encouraging and ⁴⁸¹ protecting the appropriate uses of land, buildings, and structures; regulating and restricting unsightly and detrimental signs tending to depreciate the values of property and hindering progressive improvements in the Regional District; and for the purpose of lessening, eliminating, and regulating signs constituting an actual or potential hazard to safe motor vehicle operation and general traffic on the highways____” “SEC. 27-455. BUSINESS SIGNS, FREESTANDING. ... free-standing business signs are allowable under the following conditions and restrictions: (2) In any Commercial Zone other than the C-0 Zone and in any Industrial Zone, a free-standing or ground-supported sign identifying an integrated shopping center or integrated industrial center may be erected, subject to the following conditions and requirements: (a) Total Street Frontage on Number of Signs All Streets of Center Permitted 0 to less than 100 feet......None 100 to 1,100 feet........... One Each additional 1,000 feet or fraction thereof........One (C) An individual business, not located in an integrated shopping or industrial center but located in any of the Zones specified in Subsection (2), may erect a free-standing or ground-supported sign, subject to the requirements of Subsection (2) applied on an individual basis; except that the minimum frontage for one (1) sign shall be forty (40) feet; and provided further that the main building on such premises is set back a minimum of forty (40) feet ⁴⁸² from the front property line and that the area of such sign shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each four (4) lineal feet of street frontage.” “SEC. 27-459. AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING SIGNS.

(b) Any sign or other advertising structure or device in existence on the effective date of this Section which: (1) violates or does not conform to the provisions of Division 32 of this Subtitle but (2) was constructed, erected, or maintained in accordance with the requirements of previously existing ordinances, shall be regarded as a nonconforming sign which may be continued for a period to be determined by the table as provided in this Code and if in conformance with other ordinances of the County. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 27-101, 27-482 ancT 27-553 relating to nonconforming uses, and in order to provide for a reasonable standard of amortization and to prevent an unreasonable loss, all nonconforming signs other than outdoor advertising signs as defined in Section 27-101 shall be removed in accordance with the table below. The provisions of Sections 27-101, 27-482 and 27-553 shall apply to outdoor advertising signs. Nonconforming signs which are structurally altered (excluding a change in the message or lettering), relocated, or replaced shall comply immediately with all provisions of this Ordinance and shall not be permitted to be amortized.

Original Cost of Sign Continuance Period $1 —$300 ........ .......6 months $301 —$1,000 ____ .........1 year $1,001 — $3,000 . . . ......... 2 years $3,001 — $5,000 . . . ......... 3 years $5,001 — $10,000 . . ......... 4 years ⁴⁸³ Original Cost of Sign Continuance Period $10,001 — $15,000 . . . . 5 years $15,001 — $20,000 . . . . 6 years Over $20,000 ........ 7 years” (Emphasis added.) Under Sections 27-482 and 27-553, “outdoor advertising signs” may remain as prior nonconforming uses. The appellant’s property is located on Baltimore Avenue (Route 1) in Beltsville and is zoned C-2 (general commercial, existing), with 256 feet of street frontage. There are two free-standing signs on the property. One is 40 square feet in area and is not in issue in this case.

The other sign, which is the subject of this dispute, is 128 square feet in area, and it stands 20 feet high. The top of the sign indicates “Dawnrose Dipper” and the bottom of the sign states “LIQUOR BEER ON-OFF.” The major portion of the sign prominently advertises the Maryland State Lottery. The sign has been on the property since 1941. In the court below, the appellant conceded that the sign in dispute does not conform to the present zoning requirements.

He feels, however, that the lower court erred in ordering that the sign be removed. The appellant argues, first, that the sign in question is an “outdoor advertising sign” as defined in the County Code and, hence, that it is not subject to amortized removal. We disagree and completely concur with the following analysis of the lower court judge: “Defendant contends that his billboard is an ‘outdoor advertising sign’ as defined in the ordinance because the billboard advertises the Maryland Lottery Numbers Game, which is sold and offered elsewhere than on the premises. While the fact is certainly true, we do not agree with defendant’s view.

The definition of ‘outdoor advertising sign’, reads [sic] as a whole, does not mean that any part ⁴⁸⁴ of the sign that refers to a business, commodity, service, etc. offered elsewhere than on the premises will bring that sign within the scope of the definition. Rather, the definition, read as a whole, is clearly to be interpreted as referring to the general character of the entire sign, not merely any one of its component parts. The corollary to exempting ‘outdoor advertising signs’ from the operation of Sec. 27-459(b) is obviously to disallow signs or billboards advertising a business, commodity, service, etc. conducted, sold or offered on the premises upon which the sign is located. The clear intention of the billboard in question is not to send people elsewhere to play the Maryland Lottery, but instead, to draw people into the establishment being advertised, i.e.

Dawnrose Dipper. Note further the other wording upon the sign, i.e. ‘Dawnrose’ and ‘Liquor-Beer, On-Off’. It is quite clear, therefore, that viewing the billboard in its totality, it is not an ‘outdoor advertising sign’ within the meaning of the ordinance, but a sign intended to attract people in the establishment on which location it is situated. Thus, the billboard is not exempted from the operation of Sec. 27-459(b), and it must comply with its requirements.” ⁴⁸³ I ⁴⁸⁴ II The appellant argues, next, that the difference of treatment in Section 27-459 between nonconforming signs advertising the