Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2009

Home

! \1 ,! il q !I I' \\ i! !1 \1 II i\ Ii 1\ II II 'I \1 :i II 11 i\ II 11 II 11 ,I II 'I I, II I. II 11 :, II II Ij Ii Ii It Ii Ii Ii h II II II \! 'I !I II 1,1 ! ,I " !I i' ,II \ i I II I' II II II @ 2009 Thomson Reuters :1 ________J May 25, 2009\ Volume 3\ No. 10 Zoning Bulletin /~=\ l } ment; (2) is the asserted governmental interest substantial; (3) does the regulation-directly advance the governmental interest asserted; and (4) is the regulation more extensive than necessary to serve that interest." ' Here, the court noted there was no dispute that the first and second parts of that test were satisfied. Clear Channel had asserted that the Zon- ing Resolution and Rule 49 failed to meet the third and fourth prongs. The court found that the restrictions of the ,Zoning Resolution passed the third prong since it clearly advanced the city's interests of traffic safe~ , ty and aesthetics. The court rejected Clear Charuiel's argument that the numerous exceptions in application of the Zoning Resolution failed to directly advance those interests. The court found those exceptions, "lim- ited in their number and still being reduced;" "d[id] not undermine the Zoning Resolution to the point of unconstitutioIlality.'" The "relative- ly few" exceptions to that location rule were: "signs that [we]re either grandfathered, or outside of the [c]ity's regulatory jurisdiction, or signs of a wholly different size and type." Moreover, the C,ourt said the city was not favoring one type of content over another; off-site advertising was allowed except within 200 feet of the arterial highways. The court also found that the Zoning Resolution passed the fourth prong. The city was not ,required to use the least restrictive means, nor did it have to select the best alternative. The regulation simply had to fit with the city's goals. The Zoning Resolution's prohibition on off-site advertising signs within 200 feet of arterial highways "fit the city's twin goals of traffic safety and aesthetics, while providing ample opportunities for [Clear Channel] to host their advertisements in other areas of the [c] ity," said the court. Similarly, the court found Rule 49 passed the third and fourth prongs. The documentary requirements both advanced the c}ty's interest and were narrowly tailored to serve those interests because they: "were neces- sary to ensure an accurate accountuig of the non-conforming use signs;" and allowed a "variety of documents" to be used to prove non-conform- ing status. Moreover, the court said that in. advancing the city's, interest in determining whether a sign deserved legal status, the requirements in turn also served the goal of improving traffic safety and aesthetics by re- moving nonexempt signs from the highways. /---.., , ) See also: Central Hudson Gas & Elec;. Corp. v. Public Service Commis- sion of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S. Ct. 2343, 65L. Ed. 2d 341,6 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1497,34 Pub, Uti!. Rep. 4th (PUR) 178 (1980). See a~so: Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490,101 S. Ct. 2882, 69 L. Ed. 2d BOO, 16 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA).1057, 11 Envtl. L. Rep. 20600 (1981). 8 48 (.,-)