Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2009

Home

~ ( ) \. ... Zoning Bulletin . May 25, 20091 Volume 3 I No.1 0 cials to make findings affecting specific enumerated concerns-including . esthetics and safety interests. Moreover, the court found: those concerns were sufficiently. substantial to ban. the construction of billboards; and ' the Ordinance did not appear to be broader than necessary. The court also rejected Stott's argument that the Ordinance was un- constitutional as applied. An ordinance that allowed some to speak but not others would be unconstitutional as applied. Here that was not the case. The Ordinance did not ban some signs while allowing others. Rath- ,er, it absolutely banned all off-site billboards 'W-ithout a use per~t. Additionally, the court found that the Ordinance did not unconstitu- tionallyaffect non-commercial speech. The court explained that the gov- ernment could not restrict non-commercial speech by "choos[ingJ the appropriate subjects for public discourse." For example, an ordinance would be unconstitutional if it specifically permitted on-site commercial messages related to the commercial use of property, 'but prohibited the use of otherwise identical billboards to carry non-commercial messages. Here, the court found that was not the case. The county's Ordina:nce did not distinguish between the type of speech or content of the message in the determination of whether a permit would issue. There was no evi- dence that the Ordinance improperly restricted noncommercial speech more stringently than commercial speech. See also: Metromedia~ Inc. v. City of San Diego~ 453 U.S. 490, 101 S. Ct. 2882, 69 L. Ed. 2d 800~ 16 Env't. Rep: Cas. (BNA) 1057, 11 Envtl. L. Rep. 20600 (1981). See also: City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co.; 486 U.S. 750~ 108 S. Ct. 21'38,100 L. Ed. 2d 771,15 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1481 (1988). Case Note: The court found that Stott's claims were rendered moot by the county's enactment of an interim ordinance that placed a temporary moratorium on new billboards. Nevertheless, the court addressed the claims. i \ Case Note: Stott had also claimed that it was denied procedural due process in violation of its Fourteenth Amendment rights. It main- tained this was because statements made by county'supervisors as to their personal viewpoints on the subject of the number of billboards in the countY showed the supervisors' actual bias in opposing bill- board applications. The court disagreed. It said that Stott had failed to overcome the presumption that tl:ieBoard acted with honesty and integrity. The court found that the general. statements made by the "---..;.' @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 11 51