Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2004

Home

Z.B. March 25, 2004 -- Page 7 zoning ordinance integrity. The board then denied the last variance request. The Department of Transportation sued, arguing Bayne's appearances be- fore the board in his capacity as township supervisor caused duress and undue influence because the township board, of which Bayne was a member, had power of appointment over the zoning board. The court ruled in favor of the Department of Transportation. The township appealed. DECISION: Reversed. Bayne's appearances did not impose duress. The township supervisor did not represent a personal interest but main- tained his fidelity to the township's citizens by commenting on the interests of the township. Consequeatly, he did n~ot ser~e an interest other than that of the voters, taxpayers, general public, justice, and due process. Importantly, by representing the township's interests, he did not encourage the board members to serve an interest other than the one they were bound to serve anyway. see also; Jude v. Hesetschwerdt, 578 N.W. 2d 704 (]'998). see also: Fast Air Inc. v. Knight, 599 N.W. 2d 489 (]999). Signs m Company requests permits for signs way over size limits Town claims it can't sue until a possibly valid request denied Citation: Lamar Advertising of Penn LLC v. Town of Orchard Park, 2nd U.S. Circuit Ct)ntt of Appeals, Nos. 03-7287(L) & 03-7335 (SAP) (2004) The 2nd Circuit has jurisdiction over Connecticut, New York, and Vermont. NEW YORK (02/02/04) -- Lamar Advertising of Penn LLC wanted to erect billboards of various sizes throughout the town, cf Orchard Park. To erect the billboards, Lamar was required to obtain a perm}t from a zon- ing officer. Permits were issued only i£ the requested signs met certain size and location requirements. Lamar submitted permit requests for eight signs well in excess of the pa- rameters of the zoning ordinance. All eight permits were denied. Lamar sued, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutional because it was unsupported bv a legitimate government interest and discr/minated between commercial and noncommercial messages. The town argued Lamar couldn't sue under its constitutional rights because it had never submitted permit re- quests for si gns that could possibly have been approved under the ordinance's size restrictions. The coL~rt ruled in the town's favor. Lamar appealed. DECISION: Reversed. Lamar could sue the town even though it only requested perm/ts for signs that were too large under the town's zoning laws. x ~t-:-,~.,~,.~ ..... r ........ , ~a, ...~;~-, '~", :~_,~_~t~nt- ' ~' ~ .,.~fi'~s ~'~w .~;~ .... !'~r,~:- than allowed -nd ¢dD 20i),z :2uintan P';blishln9 Group. Any ¢eproauc',ion is 9rolnibited. For more infor,,naiion .,.:lease call (617) 542-0048. 135