Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/16/2010 - Special Meeting

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 25, 2010 I Volume 4 I No. 14 "could only be constructed on a freeway -oriented parcel with three or more businesses that received permission, pursuant to [the Prior Code], for a twenty-five percent increase in their sign area allowance." With that in mind, the court examined whether the Prior Code's Pole Sign Restrictions were constitutional. The court explained that the Pole Sign Restrictions would be constitu- tional —and not in violation of the First Amendment —if they: (1) placed a content -neutral time, place, and manner restriction on the signs; and (2) were narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest; and (3) left open "ample alternative channels of communication." The court found the Pole Sign Restrictions met all of those criteria. They were content -neutral; the maximum size and height requirements did not discriminate between the content of speech. Regardless of the type of speech expressed upon a pole sign, the sign could not exceed a certain total square footage. They also served the significant government interest of "enhancing the aesthetic appearance" of the city and "protect- ing the safety of its inhabitants." Also, because the size and height restric- tions did "not foreclose other, viable means of communication," they "[left] open ample alternative channels of communication." Accordingly, the Pole Sign Restrictions were constitutionally valid.' The court concluded that the City: "did not violate [Herson's] First Amendment rights because it was entitled to deny [Herson's] permit application on the grounds that [his] proposed pole sign exceeded the City's valid [Pole Sign Restrictions]." As such, "no decision of [the] court enjoining the enforcement of other, potentially unconstitutional provi- sions of the Prior Code could redress the injury suffered by [Herson]." Therefore, Herson lacked standing to pursue those other claims. See also: Get Outdoors II, LLC v. City of San Diego, Cal., S06 E3d 886 (9th Cir. 2007). Zoning News from Around the Nation COLORADO Garfield's Board of County Commissioners recently approved a mora- torium on any new medical marijuana dispensaries in the unincorporat- ed regions of the county. The purpose of the moratorium is to give the county time to draft zoning regulations governing the industry. Source: Post Independent: httb://www.bostindebendent.com MARYLAND An Anne Arundel County Circuit Court judge recently ruled that a ballot referendum challenging a planned slots parlor at Arundel Mills mall was not legal. The zoning legislation authorizing the casino was © 2010 Thomson Reuters 11 109