Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/02/2003

Home

Page 4 -- November 25, 2002 signs within the township without applying for the required zoning permits. On March 13, 2001, the zoning inspector cited the sig-n company with vari- ous zoning violations. At a hearing before the board of zoning appeals,. Bench Signs argued, since the contract was with a public utility, the sign company was an agent of the public utility. Thus, it argued it was exempt from the zon- ing restrictions. An agent for the bus company indicated the contract had expired and was not renewed. Bench Sig-ns argued the contract' was in fact renewed by letter. The board decided the. appellant was not an agent of.the bus company and was therefore in violation of'the zoning, ordinances. Bench Signs appealed to the lower court, which affm-ned the board's deci- sion. Bench Signs appealed again, co. nte. nding the lower court incorrectly de- cided it was not an agent of the bus. company. Bench Signs also contended the zoning ordinance was unconstitutional in that it limited free speech. DECISION: Affirmed, The zoning restriction e:~emption applied only to the utility, not to Bench Signs. The contract had clearly expired. Had it not, the exemption ran only to the utility (bus company), and Bench Sig-ns could not bootstrap itself into the pro- tection of the statutory exemption by virtue of a contract. The court also rejected the argument that the sign ordinance was an uncon- stitutional limitation on free speech. Commercial speech was a~-forded less con- stitutional protection than other constitutionally guaranteed expression. Here, while the truthfulness of the message on the signs was not the issue, the board maintained its denial of permits for bench served a substantial' public interest. The signs in question were placed in rights of way, and there were strong government interests in keeping rights of way clear and keeping the township aesthetically attractive. Other government interests included the pre- uention of obstructed views and motorist distractions. Citation: Bench Signs Unlimited [nc. v. Lake Township Board of Zoning Appeals, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 5th App. Dist., Stark Co., Case No. 2002CA00096 (2002). see also:' United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 509 U.S.. 4J8, 1J3 S. Ct. 2696, J25 L. Ed. 2d 345 (t99:?). see also: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp v. Public Service Commission ofN. Y., 447 U.S. 557, 100 & Ct. 2343, 65 L. Ed. 2d 341 (J980). 28 Historical Landmarks -- Property' designated as historical landmark Designation resulted in demolition moratorium TEXAS (10/7/02) A property owner sued the Dallas.Landmark Commission (DLC) and officials individually due to the 1994 designation of the subject property as a historical landmark, which resulted in a demolition moratorium. The owners pointed to other properties located nearby that were systematically