Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2014

Home

June 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 12 Zoning Bulletin sign/mural consisted of the words "End Eminent Domain Abuse" inside a red circle and slash. On April 10, 2007, the City's Division of Building and Inspection ("B & I") issued a citation to SITO, care of Neighborhood, declaring the sign/mural an "illegal sign." The citation explained that "[p]ermits must be acquired for signs of this type" and instructed SITO how it could obtain a pen -nit. SITO and Neighborhood filed a sign -permit application. The City's zoning administrator sent SITO a letter denying its sign permit application because it did not meet certain requirements of the zoning code. The "Basis for Denial" accompanying the letter stated that the building on which the sign/mural was painted was zoned "D," or "Multiple Family Dwelling District," and that in such a district any signage could only be erected, altered, and maintained for and by a conforming use and had to be clearly incidental to the operation of the conforming use. Moreover, the zoning administrator noted that the maximum allowable square footage for any sign within a "D" district was 30 square feet, and since the diameter of SITO sign was approximately 363 square feet in area, a variance was required to permit the sign. SITO appealed the permit denial. The City's Board of Adjustment (the `Board") upheld the denial of the sign permit, finding the "[p]roposed sign [was] in conflict with Sections 26.68.010, 26.68.020 and 26.68.080 of the [City's] Zoning Code." Neighbor, SITO, and Roos (collectively, "Sanctuary") filed suit against the City and the Board challenging the Board's denial of the sign pen nit. Sanctu- ary challenged the constitutionality of provisions of Chapter 26.68 of the City's Zoning Code upon which the permit denial was based, alleging that the City and Board interfered with their rights to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution when they denied the permit application. Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that sections of the Zoning Code violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Eighth Circuit remanded the matter for a determination by the district court as to whether the unconstitutional provision was severable from the remainder of the Zoning Code. However, the City subsequently repealed two of the unconstitutional provi- sions, and amended the third to define various kinds of signs without regard to the content contained therein. The district court was thus now faced with determining whether the Zoning Code in its current form was unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. DECISION: City -Parish's motion for summary judgment granted. The United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division, held that the City sign ordinance did not violate the First Amendment. In so holding, the court explained that while the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits laws that abridge the freedom of speech, it does not guarantee "the right to communicate one's view at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired." The court noted that since signs "pose distinctive problems that are subject to municipalities' police powers" —such as taking up space and obstructing views, distracting motorists, displacing 10 ©2014 Thomson Reuters