Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 18 that a governmental body favors commercial speech over noncommercial speech when it, for example, allows greater scope to onsite commercial speech than to onsite noncommercial speech. Here, the court found that while Chapter 57A had few explicit limitations on noncommercial advertising, aside from public lands and roads, and on "political" advertising, Chapter 57A's language of limitation (e.g., "only the following signs" are "permitted" or "allowed") could only be construed as imposing broad restrictions on noncommercial speech that was not "political." Moreover, the court found that Chapter 57A permitted commercial advertising in every zoning district aside from public lands and roads, but barred noncommercial speech in most contexts in which commercial speech was allowed. The court concluded that Chapter 57A's "commercial favoritism" and "relative absence of media of expression for noncommercial speech" was unconstitutional. Although the specific section of Chapter 57A that On Sight violated— § 57A-11(B)—was found by the court to, in isolation, be constitutional, the court concluded that the unconstitutional portions of Chapter 57A could not be severed from the constitutional portions. The court noted that there was no severability clause, and concluded that, "[i]n light of the ubiquitous use of the language of limitation quoted above and the relative absence of media of expression for noncommercial speech, it is impossible to sever so much of [C]hapter 57A as permits `commercial favoritism' while retaining the remainder." In other words, the court found that Chapter 57A's provisions were so closely interwoven that "removing them wholesale would render the regulatory scheme incoherent and would amount to a judicial rewriting of a legislative scheme, which the courts do not favor." Thus, Chapter 57A, in its entirety, was deemed unconstitutional. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgments convicting On Sight of violating § 57A-11(B) of the Code. See also: Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 516, 101 S. Ct. 2882, 69 L. Ed. 2d 800, 16 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1057, 11 Envtl. L. Rep. 20600 (1981). Zoning News from Around the Nation MARYLAND Frederick County commissioners have voted to change the county code to match a new state law rerouting the appeals process for development rights and responsibilities agreements. A bill approved in the Maryland General As- sembly last session altered the process in Frederick County to bypass the county appeals board and send these cases straight to court. The County com- missioners voted to incorporate the legislation in to local law. Source: The Frederick News -Post; www.fredericknewspost.com MASSACHUSETTS The City of Worcester administration has "proposed limiting the siting of t�}tegistered medical marijuana dispensaries to areas of the city zoned for _ rcommercial/medical, business -general, manufacturing or institutional -hospital © 2013 Thomson Reuters 11