17-1458 Amending Sign Regulations

Home Browse Search

Model Land Development Code for Cities and Counties, prepared in 1989 for the Florida Department of Community Affairs by the OF College of Law's Center for Governmental Responsibility and by a professional planner with Henigar and Ray Engineering Associates, Inc., and that is nearly identical to Section 7.05.00(x) of the Land Development Regulations of the Town of Orange Park, which were upheld against a constitutional challenge in Perkins v. Town of Orange Park, 2006 WL 5988235 (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct.); and WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry finds and determines that in order to preserve the City as a desirable community in which to live, vacation and do business, a pleasing, visually - attractive urban environment is of foremost importance; and WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry fords and determines that the regulation of signs within the City is a highly contributive means by which to achieve this desired end, and that the sign standards and regulations in this proposed Ordinance are prepared with the intent of enhancing the urban environment and promoting the continued well-being of the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry finds and determines that Article II, Section 7, of the Florida Constitution, as adopted in 1968, provides that it shall be the policy of the state to conserve and protect its scenic beauty; and WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry finds and determines that the regulation of signage for purposes of aesthetics is a substantial governmental interest and directly serves the policy articulated in Article II, Section 7, of the Florida Constitution, by conserving and protecting its scenic beauty; and WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry finds and determines that the regulation of signage for purposes of aesthetics has long been recognized as advancing the public welfare; and WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry finds and determines that as far back as 1954 the United States Supreme Court recognized that "the concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive," that the values it represents are "spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary," and that it is within the power of the legislature "to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well balanced as well as carefully patrolled" [Justice Douglas in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 (1954)]; and WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry finds and determines that aesthetics is a valid basis for zoning, and the regulation of the size of signs and the prohibition of certain types of signs can be based upon aesthetic grounds alone as promoting the general welfare [see Merritt v. Peters, 65 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1953); Dade Town v. Gould, 99 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1957); E.B. Elliott Advertising Co. v. Metropolitan Dade Town, 425 F.2d 1141 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. dismissed, 400 U.S. 805 (1970)1; and WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry finds and determines that the enhancement of the visual environment is critical to a community's image and its continued presence as a desirable destination; and