Laserfiche WebLink
May 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 10 <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />requirements. In sum, because some types of signs were subject to <br />permitting, temporal, setback, and numerical limitations, while others <br />were exempt from such regulations based on the nature of the mes- <br />sages they sought to convey, the court concluded that the City's Sign <br />Code was "undeniably a content -based restriction on speech," and thus <br />subject to strict scrutiny. <br />The court explained that to pass strict scrutiny, content -based regula- <br />tions on noncommercial speech had to be narrowly tailored to serve a <br />compelling government interest. Here, the court found that the portions <br />of the Sign Code at issue were not narrowly tailored to accomplish the <br />City's asserted interests of aesthetic, local business, and traffic safety <br />concerns. The court found those purposes related to the manner in <br />which signs were erected, located, and removed throughout the City; <br />they did not explain or provide any justification for distinguishing be- <br />tween the messages contained on the signs themselves, found the court. <br />Moreover, the court found that the City failed to provide explanation as <br />to how some types of signs were more aesthetically pleasing or were <br />any less of a traffic distraction or hazard to motorists than others that <br />were regulated differently under the Sign Code. Thus, concluded the <br />court: although the Code generally promoted aesthetics and traffic <br />safety, the City had failed to demonstrate how those interests were <br />served by the distinctions it had drawn in the treatment of exempt and <br />nonexempt categories of signs. The Sign Code, concluded the court, <br />was not narrowly tailored to accomplish any of the City's interests, and <br />was therefore unconstitutional. <br />See also: Turner Broadcasting Systein, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, <br />114 S. Ct. 2445, 129 L. Ed. 2d 497, 22 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1865 <br />(1994). <br />See also: Solantic, LLC v. City of Neptune Beach, 410 F.3d 1250 <br />(11 th Cir. 2005). <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the court had also noted that, even if the Sign Code was nar- <br />rowly tailored, it was the law of the Eleventh Circuit that such general and <br />abstract aesthetic, business, and traffic safety interests are not per se (i.e., on <br />their face) so compelling as to justify content -based restrictions on signs. <br />8 © 2014 Thomson Reuters <br />