Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/1995

Home

Z.B. ~ May 199> -- I-'age / nance d~d not guarantee aprofitable location, Grand Brittain had a reason- able opportunity to continue its business. Top~nga Press Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 989 F. 2d 1524 (1993). City !of Woodall v. City of El Paso, 959 F. 2d 1305 (1992). Ren{~n v. Playtime Theatres Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 106 S. Ct. 925,. 89 L.Ed.~d 29 (1986).. .. Signs ~ Deli Owner Posts Second Sign Without Permission Bender v. City of St, Ann, 36 E3d 57 (Missouri) 1994 Bender. owned Betty's Deli.& Package Liquor. in St. Ann, Mo. The deli was between two other businesses in a small strip shopping center. The deli had a rear door that opened onto a supermarket parking lot, but customers could p~k in the front and. always used the front entrance. Under a local ordinance, businesses could have one sign on one exterior wall. Hqkvev,er, businesses with double frontage or on corner lots could post signs on!two exterior walls. Bender asked the city,s Board of Aldermen to find that~ he had double frontage and to approve a second sign for his-rear exterior Wall. Although the board denied Bender s requests, he put on the rear wall a 3-by-5 foot sign reading "Busch $5.49." ... The building commissioner cited Bender for violating the sign ordinance. Bender ~.ot oral and written notice of the violation, and an opportunity to contest i! before the municipal court. He was found guilty, but the charge was later dis~nissed on a technicality. . . Bend~er sued the city, the mayor, and the Board of Aldermen. He claimed they deprived him of a property right without due process of law because he. had no ~ay to find out whether he had double frontage. He argued that. defendir~g a citation was not the proper way to decide whether the.deli had double f_~ontage.. .......: . The ~ourt.granted judgment without a. tri:al'to the city ~ ..n.d the offic!als,. holding ~hat the mayor and board members.were entitled to.absOlute legisla- tive imrflunity for enacting the sign ordinance, and.that Bender received due process 9f law. . Bencler appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. : Althgugh the local ordinance gave bus~ness owners w~th double frontage a proper~y interest in having two signs, Bender was not deprived of a propertyi~nterest without due process of law. The violation hearing gave Bender a. ll the due process to which he was entitled. At the municipal court hearing, ~ender had an opportunity to show he had double frontage and was entitled ~o a second sign. Logct~ v. Zimmerman Brush Co., .455 U.S. 422, 102 S. Ct. !148, 71 L.Ed.~2d 265 (1982). Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed. 2d 548 (1972).