10-26-2005 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

—. , smmme 40.pmn �s- J Technological advances have resulted in spectacular electronic displays, such as this computer - controlled video dis- play in Las Vegas. The sophisticated hardware now available makes messages extremely readable, with minima/ energy use, on displays of virtually any size. sign could remain in place and that the new owner could change the copy on it, holding: "Generally, ... such truthful commercial speech may not be prohibited on the basis of its content alone." This case casts doubt on any regulation that prohibits changing the copy of a nonconforming sign. Several other cases support a sign owner's right to change the face or copy of a sign without interference by a governing body: m Budget /nn of Daphne. Inc. y. City of Daphne, 2000 WL 184245 (Ala). The Court struck down as unconstitutional a provision similar to that in the Village of Nyack case, based on a First Amendment analysis and the substantive due process clause of the 14 "' Amendment. a Motel 6 Operating Ltd Partnership r. City of Flagstaff, 195.AZ 569.991 P.2d 272 (1999). The Court ruled that the owners' proposed sign face changes were reasonable alterations to their legal nonconforming signs and. therefore. would not trigger a duty to bring the sign into conformance. e Rogers n. Zoning Bd. Of Adjustment of the Village of Ridgewood, 309 N.J. Super. 630, 707 A.2d 1090 (App.Div. 1998), aff'd, 158 N.J. 11, 726 A.2d 258 (N.J. 1999). The Court held that a change of sign to indicate a new owner of a legal nonconforming building does not cause the sign to lose its protected status. • Ray's Stateline Market. Inc. r. Totvn of Pelham, 140 N.H. 139, 665 A.2d 1068 (1995), The Court ruled that replacing the plastic face panels of two on- premise signs with face panels advertising a new tenant doughnut franchise would not result in an impermissible change or extension of the store's legal nonconforming, use, as lettering or copy changes to the existing signs would not affect the signs' dimensions. e C.F Royal Food Systems. Inc. v. .Missouri Highway and Trcrnsp. Conr n. 876 S.W. 2d 38 (1AM.App. 1994). The Court held that an advertising message on a sign which falls within the nonconforming use exemption under the state Billboard Act can be changed to reflect a change in ownership without rendering the 311312003. 12:45 PM 9