Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2011 I Volume 51 No. 16 t spokesperson for the Missouri Eminent Domain Abuse Coalition ("ME- DAC"). In early 2007, Roos and MEDAC commissioned a signlmural for the south side of a SITO-- owned building. The signlmural was ap- proximately 363 or 369 square feet in area. It was visible from nearby interstates. The signlmural consisted of the words "End Eminent Do- main Abuse" inside a red circle and slash. In April 2007, the City issued a citation to SITO. It declared the sign "illegal" because no sign permit had been obtained. SITO applied for a sign permit. The City denied the permit applica- tion, saying: the sign was larger than that allowed by the City's Zoning Code; and the sign was located on the side of a building in contraven- tion of Zoning Code requirements. SITO appealed. The City's Board of Adjustment (the "Board ") up- held the denial of SITO's sign permit application. Sanctuary filed suit in court. Among other things, Sanctuary ar- gued that the City Zoning Code's definition of "sign" impermissibly burdened its free speech rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. "Sign" was defined under the Zoning Code as: "any object or device ... situated outdoors which is used to advertise, identify, display, direct or at- tract attention to an object, person, institution, organization, business proj- ect, service, event, or location ...." The definition for "sign" specifically excluded certain things, including: " [n]ational, state, religious, fraternal, professional and civic symbols "; and "works of art." Sanctuary argued that the Zoning Code's sign restrictions were un- constitutionally content -based because they were not supported by "compelling" public interests. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute and deciding the matter on the law alone, the district court granted summary judg- ment in favor of the City and Board. Sanctuary appealed. DECISION: Reversed and matter remanded. The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, agreed with Sanctuary and reversed the district court's holding. The court of appeals held that the Zoning Code's definition of "sign" was impermissibly con- tent- based, subjecting it to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment free speech analysis. The court further held that the City's asserted inter- ests for the "sign" restrictions were not narrowly drawn to accomplish those ends. The court explained that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amend- ment provides that: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the free- dom of speech ...." This clause is applicable to municipalities. The Free © 2011 Thomson Reuters 3