Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/1995

Home

Snyder, the local government if plan consistency is shown.' there is a public purpose that Pelham, who served as secJ of Community Affairs from 1 of the state's growth managen only amicus brief that quoted While he favors the presun ~ can t totally deny the appl,cauon I¥ou have to demonstrate that ustifies giving the app!icant less." .'tary of the Florida Department )87 to 1991, the formative years ent program, says his was the the Mandelker/Tarlock article. ~ption shift when there is a question of plan consistency, ~elham believes the Snyder decision wdl yield m~xed restilts that depend on the ,nterest, background, and abihty of th{parucular judge involved. Courts can force procedural c,~anges, he adds, but are still very limited in what they can do in~ substantive terms. Mandelker concedes that 14acing the courts in the position of serving as traffic cop when {he local land-use process is producing bizarre outcomes,x,~ill be dimcult. Wl~. ,ether courts rise to this new challenge is t~e $64 question, he says. A plaintiffwho litigates a local z~ning decision under the political process malfunction theory w~ll need to have "a really good case--an intuitively irrational ~ecision," he says. But he believes that local governments that dc} their planning homework should be able to endure challenges t~ their regulations. When a city does what they re supposed toldo and vahdates their work, they don't have to worry about thetpresumptlon," he concludes. Regulating Billba ards in Baltimore By Charles C. Graves Ill and t~o, bin Allen The city of Baltimore has mo~ed to the forefront of anti- billboard activity as the result~fa five-year campaign by citizens. The campaign to regdilate billboards dates back to 1989, when concerned citizen~, through their community organizations, first began to c~mplain about a proliferation of negauve ~mages on bdlboards {n thmr nmghborhoods. ' Many people had begun to}notice what they regarded as an inordinate number of biilboar,8 advertisements for liquor and tobacco products in African-Ajnerican and inner-city neighborhoods. These ads featured very attractive people in glamorous settings, involved i4 exciting activities. But they promoted cigarettes and alcoh{flic beverages, seemingly to young people, and this concerned thdactivists. Some grassroots organizers }xpressed their opinions to the Citizens' Plann. ing and Housiqg Association (CPI-IA), a nonprofit organization that provides technical assiitance to community groups. CPI-LA or{anized the Coalition for Beautiful Neighborhoods, whi~:h set out to address the issue of negative billboard advertising. Through a report publishe4 in 1989 by the Abell Foundation, the coalition veri~ed that aboht 70 percent of the 2,015 billboards documented?in the city were located in predominantly African-Ameridan neighborhoods. Of those, about 76 percent advertised al~ ~hol or tobacco products. The study documented that most o company--Boisclair Advertisi~ Boisclair posterl3oards were of about 50 square feet as compaJ 670 square feet) and were post, 'these were owned by one ig, Inc. In most cases, the ~he junior variety (measuring ed to the regular sizes of 240 to d on the front or side facades of buildings. According to the AI~ :11 study, most of these billboards were illegal because the compa ty had failed to obtain the proper r building or zoning permits. This situation provided the coalition and the city government with the first opportunity for anti-billboard activity. In March 1991, the coalition and CPHA staged a rally to rid the neighborhoods of the offending billboards. With the permission of the owners of the buildings on which the ads were posted, they tore down a number of the junior billboards that advertised liquor and cigarettes to illustrate that such. advertising would not be tolerated in their communities. Shortly thereafter, CPHA and the coalition sued for the removal of about 740 illegal junior billboards throughout the city, based on zoning violations. Billboards in all residential districts, as well as those in certain business and manufacturing zones, had to be removed. Billboard companies were on notice that they had to either comply with existing zoning and permit laws or remove their signs. From there, the action shifted to the city council. Several bills were introduced throughout the five years, with the focus ranging from prohibiting billboards in certain areas of the city to proposed restrictions on the ad content. One .bill introduced in 1992 to curtail the future posting and permitting of billboards was adopted but is still undergoing further- consideration. However, two others introduced in 1993 were finally approved last year. They restrict the placement of outdoor advertisements for alcoholic beverages and for cigarettes and provide penalties for violations. The billboard, tobacco, and alcohol industries challenged both ordinances in court, where'they were upheld. The companies have filed further appeals. The successes in Baltimore's battle against billboards have come through monitoring zoning and permit violations, and by demonstrating that advertising content is targeting and potentially harming young people. For the planning .. department, this involved reviewing every billboard site Boisclair leased, getting community input, and providing a technical response for each site being considered, as well as reviewing the many council bills under consideration and providing background research for the court cases. Charles Graves is director of the Baltimore planning d~partment. Robin Allen is a planner in the department.. New Mobile Home Ordinance for Mississippi County The Mississippi Manufactured Housing Association (MMHA) is challenging an ordinance passed last November in Lee County, Mississippi, that seeks to control mobile home development, as well as a new development ordinance for the city of Tupelo. In the latter case, the challenge involves an overlay district for an area known as Barnes Crossing, where the new code restricts manufactured home sales to the status of major conditional uses. The MMHA contends that the measures arbitrarily discriminate against mobile home dealers and owners despite their stated purpose of protecting public health, safety, and general welfare. The county ordinance, however, follows complaints by many residents about uncontrolled runoff from mobile home parks.