Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005

Home

Z.B. November 10, 2005 --Page 3 speech. During that time, the city amended the sign ~rdinance to take out the illegal provisions. DECISION: Judgment in favor of the city. The amended sign ordinance was legal and'did not favor commercial over non-commercial speech. Consequently, Covenant had no reason to sue. The amended sign ordinance deleted or otherwise altered provisions regu- lating speech based on content. For example, it now exempted all flags from permitting requirements and deleted the prohibition on signs displaying "ob- scene, indecent, or immoral matter." Additionally, the amended ordinance ex- pressly permitted non-commercial premises signs, subject to applicable size, height, and other similar restrictions. , This amendment eliminated' the illegal provisions providing exemptions for government and corporate flags only and the ordinance's failure to define "obscene, indecent, or immoral matter." importantly, the new exemptions for public service signs, public kLf0rma- tion signs, time and temperature signs, historical identification signs, and real estate signs did not regulate based on a particular viewpoint or favored cause. see also: Joelner v. Village of Washington Park, 378 F. 3d 613 (2004). see also: Thomas v. Chicago Park District, 534 U.S. 316, 122 &Ct. 775,. 151 L.Ed. 2d 783 (2002). Variance -- Board ~ants variances to subpar property along river Neighbor claims board ignoring purpose of zoning code Citation: Hense v. St. Croix County Board of Adjustment, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 3, No. 2004AP3180 (2005) : WISCONSIN (09/20/05) -- Rosso purchased a lot on the St. Croix River. Due to the lot's size and slope, it was unbuildable under the St. Croix Riverway Zoning Ordinance. Since the property was platted for residential use, Rosso applied for the necessary variances and building permits to put a house on the Property. The St. Croix County Board of Adjustment ~anted the variances. Hense, a neighboring property owner, sued. The court ruled in fax;or of the board. Hense appealed, arguing the board had not considered the purposes of the zoning ordinance when ~anting the variances. DECISION:Affirmed. The board's grant of the variances was correct. Here, [t was undisputed the lot was platted residential, but the applicable: ordinances prevented Rosso from building any house on the lot. This hardship wats not shared by the neighboring lots; indeed, each of them had homes on them. In making its decision, the board considered erosion and run-off control plans that had been designed by professional engineers and were approved by 2005 Quintan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please pall (617) 542-0048. 61