Laserfiche WebLink
<br />situations despite the presumption that would ordinarily flow from the presence of a <br />severability clause; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the City Commission is aware that the failure of some courts to <br />uphold severability clauses has led to an increase in litigation by billboard developers <br />seeking to strike down sign ordinances in their entirety so as to argue that the <br />developers' applications to erect billboards must be granted; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the City Commission desires that there be an ample record that it <br />intends that each sign-type that is prohibited continue in effect regardless of the <br />invalidity or unconstitutionality of any, or even all other, provisions of the City's sign <br />regulations, other ordinance or Code provisions, or other laws, for any reason(s) <br />whatsoever; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the City Commission desires that the prohibition on billboards <br />continue in effect regardless of the invalidity or unconstitutionality of any, or even all <br />other, provisions of the City's sign regulations, other ordinance or Code provisions, or <br />other laws, for any reason(s) whatsoever; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the City Commission desires that there be an ample record that it <br />intends that the height and size limitations on free-standing and other signs continue in <br />effect regardless of the invalidity or unconstitutionality of any, or even all other <br />provisions of the City's sign regulations, other ordinance or Code provisions, or other <br />laws, for any reason(s) whatsoever; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the City Commission is aware that billboard developers seeking to <br />attack a sign ordinance have often advanced an argument that the developer has a <br />"vested" right to erect the billboards described in their permit applications, and argue <br />that if they are successful in obtaining a judicial decision finding that the City's entire <br />sign ordinance is unconstitutional, it follows that they are entitled to build any sign <br />described in the permit applications submitted under the "unconstitutional" ordinance, <br />and argue that this result is mandated because when they applied for their permits there <br />was no valid constitutional ordinance in place; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to make it clear that billboards are not <br />a compatible land use within the City and that there can be no good faith reliance by <br />any prospective billboard developer under Florida "vested rights," or any other theory or <br />law in connection with the prospective erection or construction of billboards within the <br />jurisdictional limits of the City; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the City Commission has determined that the purpose and intent <br />provisions of its signage regulations should be even more detailed than they are now so <br />as to further describe the beneficial aesthetic and other effects of the City's sign <br />regulations, and to reaffirm that the sign regulations are concerned with the secondary <br />effects of speech and are not designed to censor speech or regulate the viewpoint of <br />the speaker; and <br /> <br />Ordinance No. 08-1237 <br />Page 4 <br />