Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2010 ~ Volume 4 ~ No. 5 <br />~'~ See also: Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 101 S. <br />Ct. 2882, 69 L. Ed. 2d 800, 16 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1057, 11 Envtl. <br />L. Rep. 20600 (1981). <br />See also: Metro Lights, L.L.C. v. City of Los Angeles, Cal., 2009 WL <br />2761319 (U.S. 2009). <br />Case Note: The court also held that the City's registration and doc- <br />umentation scheme for outdoor advertising companies seeking non- <br />conforming use status for existing signs is a constirutionally permis- <br />sible regulation of commercial speech. "Given the outdoor advertis- <br />ing industry's history of non-compliance. with zoning regulations," <br />the court found that "the registration and documentation require- <br />ments are narrowly tailored and not more extensive than necessary <br />to aid the Ciry in its enforcement efforts." Also, "the City's decision <br />to place the onus on outdoor advertising companies to demonstrate <br />that signs and billboards are entitled to non-conforming use status <br />is a reasonable regulatory choice." <br />t!-\ Case Note: The court also found that, under the circumstances pre- <br />sented by this case, the New York State Constitution did not impose <br />' a stricter standard-for regulation of commercial speech than that <br />imposed by the federal Constitution. Accordingly, the court affumed <br />the district court's holding that "the City's zoning regulations do not <br />offend the New York State Constirution." <br />Retaliatory Denial-Zoning Board of Appeals <br />denies request for zoning and signage variances <br />Applicant alleges denials constitute unlawful retaliation for <br />exercise of her First Amendment rights <br />Citation: Fritz u. Charter Tp. of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2010) <br />The Sixth U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, <br />and Tennessee. <br />SIXTH CIItCUIT (KENTUCY, MICHIGAN, OHIO, AND TEN- <br />NESSEE) (01/28/10)-This action involved a federal § 1983 (42 U.S.C. <br />§ 1983) retaliation claim. More specifically, the case involved allegations <br />.., ~ by an applicant that the denial of her requested zoning and signage vazi- <br />an~es constituted unlawful retaliation against her for exercising her First <br />Amendment rights. <br />© 2010 Thomson Reuters ~ <br />33 <br />