|
WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry recognizes that definitions in the City's Unified
<br />Land Development Regulations need to be deleted, revised or added to in light of the recent
<br />decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., — U.S. —, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2221, 192 L. Ed. 2d 236
<br />(2015); and
<br />WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry finds and determines that it is appropriate to ensure
<br />that the Unified Land Development Regulations as it relates to signs are in compliance with all
<br />constitutional and other legal requirements; and
<br />WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry finds and determines that the purpose, intent and
<br />scope of its signage standards and regulations should be detailed so as to further describe the
<br />beneficial aesthetic and other effects of the City's sign standards and regulations, and to reaffirm
<br />that the sign standards and regulations are concerned with the secondary effects of speech and
<br />are not designed to censor speech or regulate the viewpoint of the speaker; and
<br />WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry finds and determines that the limitations on the size
<br />(area), height, number, spacing, and setback of signs, adopted herein, are based upon sign types;
<br />and
<br />WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry finds and determines that limitations on signs are
<br />related to the zoning districts for the parcels and properties on which they are located; and
<br />WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry finds and determines that various signs that serve as
<br />signage for particular land uses, such as drive-through lanes for businesses, are based upon
<br />content -neutral criteria in recognition of the functions served by those land uses, but not based
<br />upon any intent to favor any particular viewpoint or control the subject matter of public
<br />discourse; and
<br />WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry finds and determines that the sign standards and
<br />regulations adopted hereby still allow adequate alternative means of communications; and
<br />WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry finds and determines that the sign standards and
<br />regulations adopted hereby allow and leave open adequate alternative means of communications,
<br />such as newspaper advertising and communications, internet advertising and communications,
<br />advertising and communications in shoppers and pamphlets, advertising and communications in
<br />telephone books, advertising and communications on cable and satellite television, advertising
<br />and communications on UHF and/or VHF television, advertising and communications on AM
<br />and/or FM radio, advertising and communications on satellite and internet radio, advertising and
<br />communications via direct mail, and other avenues of communication available in the City of
<br />Casselberry [see State v. J & JPainting, 167 N.J. Super. 384, 400 A.2d 1204, 1205 (Super. Ct.
<br />App. Div. 1979); Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 477
<br />(1989); Green v. City of Raleigh, 523 F.3d 293, 305-306 (4th Cir. 2007); Naser° Jewelers v. City
<br />of Concord, 513 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2008); Sullivan v. City of Augusta, 511 F.3d 16, 43-44 (1st Cir.
<br />2007); La Tour v. City of Fayetteville, 442 F.3d 1094, 1097 (8th Cir. 2006); Reed v. Town of
<br />Gilbert, Ariz., 587 F.3d 966, 980-981 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part & remanded in part on other
<br />grounds, 832 F. Supp. 2d 1070, aff'd, 707 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 134 S.
<br />Ct. 2900 (2014), rev'd on other grounds & remanded, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015)]; and
<br />
|