Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2010 1 Volume 41 No. 16 help.com ". In submitting its applications, Melrose sought to have the signs, with the proposed new names, remain classified as "identifica- tion signs." The city's zoning code distinguished between three categories of signs. Identification signs were defined as signs "used to identify the name of the individual or organization occupying the premises; the profession of the occupancy; the name of the building on which the sign is displayed; or the name of the major enterprise or prin- cipal product or service on the premises." Advertising signs were defined in the zoning code as signs that direct attention to "a busi- ness, commodity, service or entertainment, conducted, sold or of- fered." Business signs were defined as signs that direct attention to "a business, organization, profession or industry located upon the premises where the sign is displayed," or the products sold, or ser- vices offered. The five buildings were in zoning districts where the city's zoning code generally: prohibited advertising signs, but allowed business signs and identification signs. Additionally, advertising signs were subject to more rigorous regulations. Ultimately, the city's zoning board rejected Melrose's applica- tions to change the identification signs on the five buildings. The zoning board determined that the proposed signs were advertising signs, prohibited in the zoning districts where the buildings were located. In reaching this decision, the zoning board applied four criteria it had previously used for determining whether a sign with advertising aspects could still be classified as a genuine identifica- tion sign. To avoid being characterized as an advertising sign, an identification sign with an advertising component had to: (1) have a major purpose of establishing a destination point generally rec- ognized by the public at a specific location; (2) have an established location that was important to a material segment of the public (e.g., sports, cultural, commercial, or artistic venue); (3) have evi- dence of intended longevity of the sign "adequate to sustain the designation point concept "; and (4) have either the owner of the facility or its principal user in control of the destiny of the sign, rather than a third party. Melrose challenged the rejection of its applications in district court. It argued that the zoning board's rejection of its applications violated its First Amendment free speech rights. The district court rejected Melrose's claims. Melrose appealed. © 2010 Thomson Reuters 3