17-1458 Amending Sign Regulations

Home Browse Search

WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry recognizes that in Reed, the Supreme Court held that if a sign regulation on its face is content -based, neither its purpose, nor function, nor justification matter, and the sign regulation is therefore subject to strict scrutiny and must serve a compelling governmental interest; and WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry recognizes that in Reed, Justice Alito in a concurring opinion joined in by Justices Kennedy and Sotomayer pointed out that municipalities still have the power to enact and enforce reasonable sign regulations; and WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry recognizes that Justice Alito in the concurring opinion joined in by Justices Kennedy and Sotomayer provided a list of rules that would not be content -based; and WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry recognizes that Justice Alito noted that these rules, listed below, were not a comprehensive list of such rules; and WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry recognizes that Justice Alito included the following rules among those that would not be content -based: (1) rules regulating the size of signs, which rules may distinguish among signs based upon any content -neutral criteria such as those listed below; (2) rules regulating the locations in which signs may be placed, which rules may distinguish between freestanding signs and those attached to buildings; (3) rules distinguishing between lighted and unlighted signs; (4) rules distinguishing between signs with fixed messages and electronic signs with messages that change; (5) rules that distinguish between the placement of signs on private and public property; (6) rules distinguishing between the placement of signs on commercial and residential property; (7) rules distinguishing between on -premises and off - premises signs [see discussion in Memorandum dated September 11, 2015 from Lawrence Tribe to Nancy Fletcher, President, Outdoor Advertising Association of America, re Applying the First Amendment to Regulations Distinguishing Between Off -premises and On -premises Signs After Reed v. Town of Gilbert]; (8) rules restricting the total number of signs allowed per, mile of roadway; and (9) rules imposing time restrictions on signs advertising a one-time event, where rules of this nature do not discriminate based on topic or subject and are akin to rules restricting the times within which oral speech or music is allowed; and WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry recognizes that Justice Alito further noted that in addition to regulating signs put up by private actors, government entities may also erect their own signs consistent with the principles that allow governmental speech [see Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467-469 (2009)], and that government entities may put up all manner of signs to promote safety, as well as directional signs and signs pointing out historic sites and scenic spots; and WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry recognizes that Justice Alito noted that the Reed decision, properly understood, will not prevent cities from regulating signs in a way that fully protects public safety and serves legitimate aesthetic objectives, including rules that distinguish between on -premises and off -premises signs; and WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry recognizes that as a result of the Reed decision, it is appropriate and necessary for local governments to review and analyze their sign standards and