Laserfiche WebLink
May 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 9 Zoning Bulletin <br />Moreover, the court found that "the provisions at issue are not narrowly <br />tailored because they are not the least restrictive means by which the <br />State may further its interests." The court noted there were "multiple ef- <br />fective, less restrictive" alternatives to the on-premises/off-premises <br />distinction of the Billboard Act, which would further the State's com- <br />pelling interests," such as: a non-commercial/commercial distinction <br />(which could be "less effective but not ineffective"); a size regulation; <br />distance/spacing restrictions; and presentation -related regulations. <br />In sum, the court found that the State's interests were not compelling, <br />and even if they were compelling, the Billboard Act's exemption and <br />exception provisions were not narrowly tailored to achieve their purpose <br />because they were underinclusive and did not constitute the least re- <br />strictive means available: For those reasons, the Court concluded that <br />the Billboard Act was an unconstitutional, content -based regulation of <br />speech. <br />See also: Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2226 192 L. <br />Ed. 2d 236 (2015). <br />See also: Wagner v. City of Garfield Heights, 2017 WL 129034 (6th <br />Cir. 2017). <br />Case Note: <br />The court was not persuaded that the Billboard Act was written in such a way <br />that the unconstitutional on-premises/off-premises distinction was severable <br />from the rest of the Act. Thus, the court declared the entire Act unconstitutional. <br />Authority Newly seated county <br />commissioners repeal ordinance <br />passed two weeks prior that had <br />allowed for rezoning of property <br />Landowner argues commissioners lacked <br />authority to rescind the prior rezoning approval <br />Citation: Boomer v. Waterman Family Limited Partnership, 2017 WL <br />823712 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2017) <br />MARYLAND (03/02/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />a county had the authority to rescind a previously adopted ordinance, <br />thus reversing its own action. <br />The Background/Facts: The Waterman Family Limited Partnership <br />6 © 2017 Thomson Reuters <br />