Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2005

Home

Z.B. October i 0, 2005 -- Page'3. political in nature, on' his porch and in front o.f his home. · The village served Lusk a zoning violation notice for his signs. It claimed he needed a"permit to'post signs on his property. A permit would be ganted if the sig'ns met certain restrictions outlined in the local ordinance. However, under the ordinance, "flags, badges, or insignia of any governmental agency or any civic, charitable, religiohs, patriotic, fi:ammak or simi- lar organization" were exempt from the permitting a. nd other sig-n requirements. Lusk sued, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutional as written. The village claimed the ordinance was constitutional because it was intended to advance aesthetics and traffic safety by controlling motorist distractions. DECISION: Judgment in favor of Lusk. .. The ordinance was unconstitutional. B y allowing the posting of flags, badges, or.insignias associated with gov- ernmental agencies and charitable organizations without a permit,, the village discriminated between those who wished to demonstrate their affiliation and support of such organizations and those who wished to support a sports team, a commercial organization, a union, or a political affg_iation. Consequently, the ordinance was not content neutral. . Because the Cold Spring ordinance was not content neutral, i.t could not be the narrowest means to affect the compelling governmental interests of aes- thetics and traffic safety. Aesthetics could be just as compromised, and motOrists c~uld be just as distracted, by displays of governmental., religious, or charitable flags, badges, or insignia. Therefore, the content-based restriction inherent in the Sign brdinance did not serve the state interest that was supposedly vindicated by the sign orcliz nance itself. " see also: Virginia v. Blacfr, 538 U.S. 343, 123 &Ct. 1536, 155 L£tt2d 535 (2003). see also: Nichols Media Group LLC v.: Town of Babylon, 365 ESupp. 2d:295 (2005). Easement -, Land trustee claims easement by necessitY [,and had been divided in mid-IPth century Citation: Kitras v. Town of Aquinnah, Appeals Court of'Massachusetts, No. 04-P-472 (2005) MASSACHUSETTS (08/18/05) -- Kitras was the trustee of a landlocked lot in the town of Aquinnah. KAtras wanted to develop the lot, but she had no road t'rontage or access to utilities. Consequently, Kitras claimed that she had an easement by necessity over her neighbor's lots. Importantly, the lot neigJa- bored federal and tribal land and had been divided by a state commissioner in the mid- i 9th century. - 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617} 542-4X14.8. 171