Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2005

Home

Page 6 -- June 10, 2005 Z.B. Merely classifying a sign on the basis of its content was not, by itself, a problem. However, in this case, the first problem was that billboards were the largest signs allowed under the ordinance. Because n6ncommercial messages were ex- cluded from the definition of a billboard, noncommercial messages could not be as large as commercial messages in those areas where billboards were allowed. Second, the ordinance prohibited noncommercial signs from being perma- nent. The only ordinance provision allowing political signs applied solely to temporary signs. Consequently, permanent political and ideological 'signs were not expressly allowed under any provision of the ordinance. Therefore, the ordinance, as written, was unconstitutional. see also: Seay Outdoor Advertising '[nc. v. City of Mary Esther, 397 F. 3d 943 (2005). see also: Coral Stylings Street Syst'ems Inc. v. City of Sunrise, 371' F. 3d 1320 (2004). Permit-- Property owner wants to store medical, waste o.n his property City concerned about property's location within-the flq~dplain Citation: Roussell v. The City of Ozark, Court of Appeals.of Missouri, Southern Dist., Div. ], No. 26427 (2005) MISSOURI (04/27/05) --A portion of Roussell's property was located within a floodplain zone. As a result, no construction could occur without the issuance of a Floodplain Development Permit. Roussell wanted to build a warehouse, which he planned to lease out to others as a waste facility. He received a Solid Waste Permit from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. According to the permit, the type of waste acceptable for this location included "medical waste." Roussell applied for the necessary floodplain permit. However, the city refused to approve the permit until-Roussell amended his application to exclude "medical waste" as a possible use of the property. Roussell sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. Roussell appealed, arguing the city's addition of "medical waste" to the list of excluded uses for the property was not justified. DECISION: ~ed. Under the city code, an application for a floodplain permit had to include information regarding the use or proposed work of the planned development and any other information reasonably required by the floodplain administrator. These requirements allowed the municipal decision-maker to determine the best interests of public health, welfare, safety, and morals. The existence of single-family developments around the proposed prop4 erty, coupled with Roussell's solid waste'permit, justified the city's inquiry into how the property was going to be used. The municipal.code specifically ,.,, 98 © 2005 quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please catl (617) 542-0048.