Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2005

Home

Z.B. June 10, 2005 ~ Page 5 no authority to Kant the permit because the shore land at issue was not property zoned for a planned unit development. The court ruled in favor of the county. The association appealed, arguing the county lacked the authority to ap- prove the conditional use permit because it failed to follow the planning pro- cess outlined in state regulations. DECISION: Vacated. The adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance was a legislative act. Here, the county's grant of the conditional use permit was a zoning decision, and legislative in nature. Consequently, the court could not make a decision. The sole issue in this case was whether counties could establish mixed-use commercial and clustered residential developments on natural environment lakes without first using the land-use zoning process in the state regulations. To resolve this matter, the court would have to decide whether the county could use the conditional use permit process to develop lake property parcel by parcel, or whether the county had to engage in a zoning process that provided notice to the public as to how a particular parcel of land would be developed. This would call for an interpretation of the relationship among the ordinances, statutes, and regulations relating to shore land development. The court could review decisions that were judicial in nature. However, since the association's attack on the county's zoning decision was actually an attack on a legislative decision, the court had no jurisdiction over the matter. see also: b2terstate Power Co. Inc. v. Nobles Co~tnty Board of Commissioners, 617 N. W. 2d 566 (2000). see alxo: Marzitelli v..City of Little Canada, 582 N.W. 2d 904 (1998). Signs -- Ordinance favors commercial signs Commercial signs can be permanent and larger than noncommercial signs Citation: KH Outdoor LLC v. City of Trussville, U.S. District Co~rt for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Div., No. CV-O3-HS-3278-S (2005) ALABAMA (04/27/05) -- KH Outdoor LLC was an outdoor advertising com- pany. KH Outdoor submitted 11 applications to construct outdoor advertising signs within the city of Trussville; however, every application was denied. ICH Outdoor sued, arguing the sign ordinance was unconstitutional cause it favored commercial speech over noncommercial speech. DECISION: Judgment in favor of KI-I Outdoor. The sign ordinance unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of content. Because permanent commercial signs were allowed.but permanent noncom- mercial signs were not, the ordinance unconstitutionally favored commercial speech over noncommercial speech. This was a plain and well-established violation Of the Constitution. cc) 2005 Ouinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduclion is prohibited, For more information please call (617) 542-004S. 97