03/07/2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Community Development Director FROM: Roland M. DeBlois, AICP Chief, Environmental Planning and Code Enforcement DATE: February 27, 2017 RE: Consideration of Proposed Amendments to County Sign Regulations (Land Development Regulations Chapter 901, Definitions, Chapter 956, Sign Regulations, and Chapter 912, Single -Family Development) It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners formally consider the following information at the Board's regular meeting of March 7, 2017. BACKGROUND Indian River County's current sign ordinance (LDR Chapter 956, Attachment 1 to this report) was substantially developed in the mid-1980s through a series of extensive public workshops and has remained relatively unchanged since that time, albeit with some revisions over the years. The ordinance regulates various aspects of signs such as type, size, number and location, and contains different criteria depending on the category of sign, distinguishing between on -premises signs, off -premises signs, free- standing signs, fagade signs, permanent signs and temporary signs. Objectives of the sign code, stated in the purpose and intent section of Chapter 956, include: avoidance of excessive sign proliferation and clutter; adequate accommodation of information to the public; protection of property values; creation of an attractive business climate; protection of the community's appearance and natural beauty; and improvement of vehicular and pedestrian safety. The ordinance prohibits certain types of signs, such as banners and animated signs, but also allows some signs (such as garage sale and real estate signs) without requiring a permit, provided certain criteria are met. U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Reed v. Town of Gilbert In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case (Reed et al. v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al.) in which a church contended that the Town of Gilbert regulated temporary signs differently based on the content of signs, and thus the Town's sign ordinance violated freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court sided with the church and invalidated the Town's sign code as content -based regulation of speech. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas held that the Town's sign code distinctions among different types of signs were content based and did not satisfy strict scrutiny. In concurring opinions, the Court clarified that localities could regulate signs from the standpoint of size, location, physical characteristics, and duration of display, but on a "content -neutral" basis (see Court Syllabus and Opinions, Attachment 2 to this report).