[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]

The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)



STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL


Opinion No. 5629

January 21, 1980

HIGHWAY ADVERTISING ACT:

Authority of municipalities to regulate signs

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:

Authority of municipalities to regulate signs

MUNICIPALITIES:

Authority to regulate signs

A city, village, charter township and a township having more than 50,000 population may enact an ordinance providing more stringent requirements with respect to size, lighting and spacing of signs than those provided in the Highway Advertising Act. In addition, such municipalities may enact zoning ordinances establishing commercial industrial areas for the purposes of the Highway Advertising Act.

Honorable Thomas H. Brown

State Representative

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan 48909

You have requested my opinion as to whether the Highway Advertising Act superseded a local sign ordinance.

The Highway Advertising Act of 1972 PA 106; MCLA 252.301, et seq; MSA 9,391(101) et seq, provides for the licensing, regulation and control of outdoor advertising adjacent to Michigan's interstate highways, freeways, and primary highways. The Highway Advertising Act of 1972, Sec. 5; MCLA 252.305; MSA 9.391(105) states:

'A person shall not engage or continue to engage in outdoor advertising through the erection, use or maintenance of any signs in an adjacent area where the facing of the sign is visible from an interstate highway, freeway or primary highway, except as provided in this act.'

The Highway Advertising Act of 1972, supra, Sec. 2(o); MCLA 252.302; MSA 9.391(102), defines 'adjacent area,' as used in the act, to mean:

'(o) . . . the area measured from the nearest edge of the right of way of an interstate highway, freeway, or primary highway and extending 3,000 feet perpendicularly and then along a line parallel to the right-of-way line.'

The involvement of local governmental units in the regulation and control of outdoor advertising is set forth in the Highway Advertising Act of 1972, supra, Sec. 4; MCLA 252.304; MSA 9.391(104) which states:

'This act regulates and controls the size, lighting and spacing of signs and sign structures in adjacent areas and occupies the whole field of such regulation and control except that:

(a) Every city, village, charter township and township, such township having more than 50,000 population, may enact ordinances to regulate and control the size, lighting and spacing of signs and sign structures but such ordinances shall not make lawful a sign or sign structure which is otherwise unlawful under this act. Such a city, village, charter township or township shall certify to the state highway commission that it regulates and controls size, lighting and spacing of signs and sign structures and shall submit a copy of its ordinances and all subsequent amendments to the department. A sign owner shall apply for an annual permit pursuant to section 6 for each sign to be maintained or to be erected within such a city, village, charter township or township.

(b) A city, village, charter township or township vested by law with authority to enact zoning codes has full authority under its own zoning codes or ordinances to establish commercial or industrial areas and the actions of a city, village, charter township or township in so doing shall be accepted for the purposes of this act.

(c) An ordinance or code existing on the effective date of this act, or a city, village, charter township or township, such township having more than 50,000 population which ordinance or code prohibits signs or sign structures, shall not be made void by this act.'

It is significant to note, that S. B. 517 that concerned regulation of outdoor advertising introduced on April 22, 1971, contained a provision that the proposed act would occupy the whole field of regulation and control of lighting and spacing of signs and sign structures along state highways. The conference committee, however, recommended that the preemption language found in section 4 of S. B. 517 be deleted and in place thereof proposed section 4 as it presently appears in the Highway Advertising Act of 1972, supra, Sec. 4. Senate Journal 1971, pp. 1099, 1192, 1196. Thus, it is clear that the Legislature did not intend that the Highway Advertising Act of 1972, supra, completely preempt local governmental authority with respect to the regulation and control of outdoor advertising signs and sign structures located along state trunkline highways.

Accordingly, it is my opinion that state preemption does not exist under the Highway Advertising Act of 1972, supra, and cities, villages and townships may exercise such control with respect to outdoor advertising along highways as is authorized by the Highway Advertising Act of 1972, supra, Sec. 4.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General


[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]