PL PACKET 02181992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

time,place,and manner regulations;regulation of these fac- ercise of the police power. This challenge was denied; the tors is unrelated to speech and the effect on speech is inciden- court ruled that the city could find that projecting signs of tal to the furtherance of the public interest in traffic safety three feet or less were less a threat to public safety than those and aesthetics. which extended more than three feet.The distinction was Legal challenges to the structural regulation of signs are upheld as both a valid exercise of the police power and as one rare.The structural regulation of signs, like the structural reasonably related to the promotion of safety and aesthetics. regulation of buildings,is well within the police power.The Local officials charged with drafting and enforcing sign concern of sign owners is that they be permitted to have signs regulations should be clear as to the purpose of size restric- in the first place.Given permission to place a sign,the owner tions and should adopt only those reasonably related to that will usually comply with structural requirements. It is im- purpose.Within these bounds,their authority to control size portant that a community regulate in accordance with the will not be questioned by the courts who are,as a guiding applicable building codes and equally important that it en- principle, reluctant to interfere with the substantive deci- force structural regulations. Its legal authority to do so is sions of local legislatures on topics in which local officials unquestionable. have expertise as well as authority. The regulation of sign size and location upon a particular Note that the discussion in this section assumes that the piece of property (as opposed to regulations based on regulation of structure,size,and location is content neutral, distinctions between on-and off-premises sites)is-also well applying'equally to all signs similarly located. within both the general police power and the zoning power granted to local governments.Such regulations may be chal- CONCLUSION lenged in some circumstances, but they are generally ac- In short,the law supports local governments in regulat- cepted. For example, the sign owners in County of ing signs. Many courts accept both traffic safety and Cumberland v. Eastern Federal Corp.,269 SE2d 672 N.C. aesthetics as valid grounds for sign regulation.The U.S.Su- App. 518 (1980), did challenge the size restriction placed preme Court has found that traffic safety is so clearly an upon advertising signs as being in violation of their First issue in sign regulation that no proof on the issue is even nec- Amendment rights.The court,however,held the regulation essary. to be a reasonable restriction upon the time,place,and man- Local governments have faced the greatest difficulty in ner of expression, and upheld, without discussion, the defending sign regulations in cases in which they have county's power to employ such a restriction. regulated similar signs with different messages differently, The court was concerned only that the regulation did not without having a valid aesthetic or traffic safety reason for attempt to censor the content of the message or to impose a doing so. Attempts to regulate billboards as off-premises prior restraint upon the expression.The only qualification signs have been particularly difficult to defend and are prob- upon the power of government to regulate the size of signs ably unconstitutional in almost every case because of the is that the regulation must be reasonable.What is reasonable practical effect of such regulations in eliminating most non- depends upon the circumstances of a particular situation. commercial messages. The law is concerned that the regulation be reasonably The other sign regulation that is most likely to result in a. drawn in order to promote the stated purpose,whether that legal challenge is a requirement for the removal of noncon- purpose is safety, or aesthetics, or both. forming signs.Some states prohibit such a provision in local In VFW Post 4264 v.City of Steamboat Springs,575 P.2d regulations;where state law allows amortization provisions, 835,195 Colo.44,(1978),app.dismissed 439 U.S.809,99 the primary issue in the courts is how long a period of amor- S.Ct.66,the Colorado Supreme Court upheld an ordinance tization is reasonable. that limited the size of signs that projected into or over public With the exception of those two difficult legal area the property.The regulation was challenged on First Amend- courts have been very supportive of local sign regulations ment grounds and upheld as a reasonable time,place, and and have had little difficulty in sustaining limits on size, manner restriction.It was also challenged as an arbitrary ex- height,location,and design of signs. 24