Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2003

Home

September 25, 2003 ~ Page 7 The court looked at the relevant statute and determined the intent of the legislature was to exempt the land board from compliance with local zoning laws. The statute provided, "the state and all its agencies, boards, departments, institutions, and local special purpose districts, shall comply with all plans and ordinances adopted under this chapter unless otherwise provided by law." Here, the state argued the term "unless otherwise provided by law" created an ex- emption for the land board. The state code also provided that state public school endowment land could be leased for commercial purposes and these operations would be subject to local zoning laws. However, the explanation of the word commercial did not include agricultural leases or mineral leases. Citation: State of Idaho v. Blaine County, Supreme Court of Idaho, No. 28710 (2003). see also: Kelso v. Lance, 3 P. 3d 51 (2000). Signs -- Billboard companies challenge county sign ordinance Did the ordinances violate the First Amendment? CALIFOR~NIA (7/31/03) -- Two billboard companies challenged the consti- tution'ality of the two versions of the sign ordinance enacted by Riverside County. They argued both versions violated the First Amendment because they im- posed imperrrdssible restrictions on speech, favored commercial speech over noncommercial speech, and gave unbridled discretion to county officials ei- ther to ~ant or deny permits. The companies also contended the g-randfather provision of the newer ordi- nance was specifically intended to single them out for retribution. The companies leased outdoor advertising space and the four signs in ques- tion were located on land adjoining State Highway 91. The original version of the ordinance differentiated off~ and on-site adver- tising structures and signs. Off-site Signs were subjected to more smingent re- qu/rements and were permiued only in certain areas, These sig-ns were limited to 25 feet in height or 300 square feet in surface area and could~aot be altered, relocated, or repaired without a permit. The later, amended ordinance kept the same distinction between off- and on-site signs, but it contained a provision that all pre-e~sting advertising dis- plays, structures, or signs, whether on- or off-site, were deemed to be illegal unless they were erected in compliance with "all applicable county ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of their construction, erection or use." The amended ordinance also contained a provision tha~t "anywhere a dis- play, structure or sign is permitted by this ordinance; a non-commercial mes- sage may be placed on such display, structure or sign." The companies sued, seeking a declaratory order that the original and amended ordinances were unconstitutional both on their face and as applied. They sought injunctive relief to stop Riverside County from enforcing either 113