Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Stamford
Docket: Docket No. 01-7963
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; June 25, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
The judgment of the district court is affirmed, dismissing Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc.'s (Granite State) appeal challenging the constitutionality of Stamford's outdoor sign regulations and those of Connecticut. Granite State argued that the district court erred by deeming its claims moot after Stamford amended its sign regulations, denying it damages, and ruling it lacked standing to contest Connecticut's regulations. The appeal stemmed from the denial of two sign permit applications, which were rejected because the proposed billboards violated existing height and size restrictions.
After Stamford amended its regulations, Granite State did not contest the new rules. The district court ruled that the constitutional claims were moot due to these amendments and found that the earlier regulations were unlikely to be reinstated. It also determined that Granite State's claims for damages were moot concerning its facial challenges. The court concluded that the voluntary cessation of potentially illegal activities by Stamford, backed by the lack of any current unconstitutional restrictions, rendered Granite State's claims unviable. The appeal was reviewed under the standards of mootness, with the court affirming the district’s ruling without finding an abuse of discretion.
Applications submitted prior to amendments in zoning regulations must adhere to the rules in effect at the time of filing, as per Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-2h. Connecticut courts have established that zoning changes enacted after an application is submitted do not nullify pending appeals, applying only the regulations effective at the time of the application. However, for § 8-2h to apply, the application must conform to then-current zoning regulations. Granite State's application did not meet the height, size, and setback criteria of the applicable regulations, rendering § 8-2h inapplicable. Furthermore, Granite State’s claims for damages are baseless as its application was destined for rejection regardless of the constitutionality of Stamford’s regulations. It cannot demonstrate injury from these alleged unconstitutional restrictions. Consequently, its claims for injunctive relief are moot, and the claims against Stamford’s regulations are dismissed. Additionally, Granite State lacks standing to contest Connecticut’s sign regulations, as it cannot demonstrate an injury that is causally linked to the alleged conduct, nor can it show that a favorable ruling would remedy any claimed injury. Since its application would have been denied under state prohibitions against non-conforming signs, the court affirms the district court's judgment.
