Laserfiche WebLink
March 10, 2013 I Volume 7 1 Issue 5 Zoning Bulletin <br />Case Note: <br />Coyne had also argued that he had standing because the development of the PUD <br />would adversely affect the value of his property. The circuit court judge ruled that <br />Coyne's lay opinion testimony about fitture fluctuations in the value of his property <br />was inadmissible. The Court of Appeals of Maryland agreed. It held that, in this <br />case, such an argument required expert testimony. <br />First Amendment —Sign ordinance <br />exempts public art and holiday <br />decorations from residential sign <br />restrictions <br />Resident contends those exemptions make the <br />sign ordinance restrictions content based and <br />subject to strict constitutional scrutiny <br />Citation: Brown v. Town of Cary, 2013 WL 221978 (4th Cir. 2013) <br />The Fourth Circuit has jurisdiction over Maryland, North Carolina, <br />South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. <br />FOURTH CIRCUIT (NORTH CAROLINA) (01/22/13) —This case ad- <br />dressed the issue of whether a town's sign ordinance, which exempted pub- <br />lic art and holiday decorations from residential sign restrictions, should be <br />analyzed for constitutionality under a standard of strict scrutiny or interme- <br />diate scrutiny. It further addressed whether the ordinance was constitutional <br />under that scrutiny. <br />The Background /Facts: William Bowden ( "Bowden ") lived in the <br />Town of Cary (the "Town ") for many years. Bowden had a quarrel with the <br />Town over damage to his house allegedly caused by water discharge from <br />municipal road - paving projects. Dissatisfied with the Town's efforts to <br />resolve the dispute, Bowden responded by painting the words "Screwed by <br />the Town of Cary" across a 15 -foot swath of the facade of his home. The <br />letters of the sign varied in height from 14 to 21 inches and were painted in <br />a bright fluorescent orange paint. <br />The Town eventually issued to Bowden multiple notices of zoning <br />violation. In those notices, the Town referenced Chapter 9 of its Land <br />Development Ordinance (the "Sign Ordinance "). Specifically, the Town <br />notified Bowden that he was in violation of the Sign Ordinance's: size <br />limitation for residential signs; size limitations for wall signs; and violation <br />of color restrictions for signs. <br />Bowden refused to remove or modify the sign. Instead, he sued the <br />6 © 2013 Thomson Reuters <br />