Laserfiche WebLink
April 10, 2016 ( Volume 10 i Issue 7 <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />Case Note: <br />Central Radio had also argued that the City had selectively enforced the sign <br />code in violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of <br />the Fourteenth Amendment when the City issued the citations to Central Radio <br />but allowed analogous displays to stand unchallenged. The district court had <br />dismissed this claim, and the Fourth Circuit found that dismissal was proper <br />"because there was insufficient evidence that the City was motivated by a <br />discriminatory intent." <br />Case Note: <br />In October.2015, the City amended the sign code. That amendment resulted in <br />the current form of the code no longer exempting certain flags, emblems, and <br />works of art from regulations. However, the current form of the code now <br />. specifies that works of art and flags are "examples of items which typically do <br />not satisfy the code's definition of 'sign.' " The City had argued that because <br />of the amendments to the sign code, Central Radio's claims were moot. The <br />court concluded that Central Radio's request for prospective injunctive relief <br />was moot, but that Central Radio's request for retrospective relief in the form• <br />of nominal damages, based on the alleged unconstitutional content -based re- <br />striction on speech, was not moot. <br />Central Radio also maintained that the amended sign code continued to impose <br />an unconstitutional content -based restriction on speech by listing governmental <br />flags and works of art as examples of items that typically would not qualify as <br />signs. The Fourth Circuit declined to consider this new challenge, and instead <br />offered that the district court was free to consider this new claim on remand. <br />PermitsConditionof permit <br />reserves authority to local <br />commission to enforce violations <br />of State Act <br />Permit holder challenges condition as exceeding <br />commission authority and preventing finality <br />Citation: In re Treetop Development Company Act 250 Development, <br />2016 VT 20, 2016 WL 556155 (Vt. 2016) <br />VERMONT (02/12/16) As a matter of first impression (i.e., the first <br />6 © 2016 Thomson Reuters <br />