Laserfiche WebLink
May 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 10 <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />First Amend ent/ i ns—After <br />business posts political signs <br />complaining about city, city issues <br />violation notice for noncompliance <br />with sign ordinance <br />Business then challenges sign ordinance as <br />unconstitutional restriction on speech <br />Citation: Bee's Auto, Inc. v. City of Clermont, 2014 WL 1268591 <br />(M.D. Fla. 2014) <br />FLORIDA (03/27/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />city's sign code unconstitutionally regulated speech under the First <br />Amendment to the United States Constitution. <br />The Background/Facts:.Bee's Auto, Inc. ("Bee's Auto") sought to <br />operate an automobile repair shop and storage facility on a parcel of <br />property it purchased. The City of Clermont (the "City") informed <br />Bee's Auto that it first needed to apply for and obtain a Conditional <br />Use Perurit under the City's zoning ordinances. Bee's Auto refused to <br />apply for the permit. Instead, Bee's Auto posted numerous signs on the <br />property complaining about the City. The City then issued several <br />violation notices to Bee's Auto under the City's sign ordinance (the <br />"Sign Code"). <br />The City alleged that the 12 signs on Bee's Auto's property violated <br />Code §§ 102-6 and 102-7(18). Section 102-6 required permits for all <br />signs that did not fall within an "exempt" category. Section 102-7(18) <br />provided that "non-commercial" signs (not including political signs) <br />were exempt from perrnit requirements but subject to restrictions on <br />the number, size, setback, and frontage for such signs. The City as- <br />serted that under the Sign Code, Bee's Auto was: only allowed to post <br />one exempt sign on its property; required to obtain permits for the <br />remaining 11 signs; and required to adhere to the Sign Code's size and <br />location restrictions. <br />Bee's Auto refused to comply with the Violation Notice issued by <br />the City. Instead, it filed suit alleging that the signs were protected po- <br />litical speech, and that the citation, fines, and the City's Sign Code <br />violated Bee's Auto's First Amendment right to free speech. Bee's <br />Auto alleged both a facial and as -applied challenge to the constitution- <br />ality of the City's Sign Code. It alleged that the Code's permitting and <br />6 © 2014 Thomson Reuters <br />