Mark, thank you for responding. Let me explain my reasoning: 1. The proposal was to be integrated into our 6th Draft Sign Ordinance which should allow signs on properties on different bases. I’ll need to amend the draft to merge the concepts of folks feel this can work. Doing so should clarify the issue you raise but certainly needs refinement. 2. I think our Draft Sign Ordinance allows other uses to erect signs, but of limited size. I’d think a school or church would qualify as a business under this proposal so would not be treated differently. 3. I didn’t identify the contents of a plan as I thought that could be localized by the adopters. It would make sense to offer some sort of model though if we could get help in doing so. 4. I think relabeling makes sense. Need to come up with a new label. 5. I think most entities that want to regulate off-site signs differently from on-site signs want to limit the off-site signs in a way that makes it difficult if not impossible to do without using the content to identify how the signs differ, so my thought was reverse the concept to allow property owners to erect signs based on a function or use of the property. Then one could regulate distance from highway, size, height and illumination issues. I hope others will contribute to the discussion. Chuck Charles W. Thompson, Jr. General Counsel & Executive Director D: 202-742-1016 P: (202) 466-5424 x7110 M: (240)-876-6790 [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> [logo]<https://imla.org/> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/> Plan Ahead! IMLA’s 2021 Mid-Year Seminar<https://imla.org/seminars/>, April 23-26, 2021 in Washington, DC! IMLA’s 86th Annual Conference<https://imla.org/annual-conference/>, Sept. 29-Oct. 3, 2021 in Minneapolis, MN! From: mwhite planningandlaw.com <mwhite@planningandlaw.com> Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2020 4:32 PM To: Chuck Thompson <cthompson@imla.org> Cc: codeenforcement@lists.imla.org; fellows@lists.imla.org; Landuse@lists.imla.org; cityattorneys@lists.imla.org Subject: Re: [Landuse] The on-site off-site sign code quagmire Chuck - A few things: 1. I’m sure that’s not your intention, but Section 3 prohibits any sign for anyone not holding a business location license (BLL). So, if I’m a homeowner and don’t have a BLL, I cannot place a political sign in my front yard? A for-sale sign? Of course, curing this problem requires pointing out the numerous sign catgories that are not subject to the BLL restrictions. Unless they’re physical/location-only distinctions (e.g. up to ___ signs up to ___ sf located in the front yard in a residential zoning district), they’re objectionable under the holding in the Austin case. 2. To the extent that this authorizes signs for BLL that are not available to non-BLL holders in the same zoning district (say, churches, schools, or someone who wants to express an opinion about something), doesn’t this favor commercial over non-commercial speech? 3. What are the contents for the “plan” that is submitted with the BLL license? What are the criteria for approval? 4. This seems to address the issue of multiple parcels developed under a single plan, where a freestanding sign is often used to identify multiple tenants. I would suggest purging “business” from the label and simply providing for a master sign plan that enable multiple tenants or occupants to place a message (whatever that message may be) on a single sign. 5. As an alternative to an on- versus off-premises distinction, would it make more sense to just define a “billboard” as a physical thing, and then just designate the districts or locations where a billboard is allowed? Thanks for putting this together and starting the discussion! Mark Mark White White & Smith, LLC | Planning and Law Group mwhite@planningandlaw.com<mailto:mwhite@planningandlaw.com> | www.planningandlaw.com<http://www.planningandlaw.com> (816) 221-8700 - phone | (816) 554-3222 - mobile [cid:image009.jpg@01D6CC7D.AD4225A0] [cid:image010.png@01D6CC7D.AD4225A0] [cid:image011.png@01D6CC7D.AD4225A0] Kansas City | Charleston CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that disclosure, copying, printing, distributing or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachment(s) without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. On Dec 3, 2020, at 11:01 AM, Chuck Thompson <cthompson@imla.org<mailto:cthompson@imla.org>> wrote: We’re working internally on writing an amicus brief in support of Austin in its case involving billboards. As I read the 5th Circuit decision, it occurred to me that there may be a road map in the decision for dealing with billboards in a way that could be content neutral. I’m probably missing something but thought I’d throw the concept plan out to you and risk the embarrassment. So looking for your thoughts on the following and if there’s interest we can do a call or zoom to discuss further. Sign code concept I’ve used “business location license” and other words might be better such as “sign authorization license” or “business sign permit”. The idea being that this provision would address the problem in Reagan vs. City of Austin and other cases holding that the distinctions between on-site and off-site signs are currently content based and the suggestion in the Reagan v Austin case of a remedy. I think it addresses the on-site off-site distinction by prohibiting signs except those where businesses are open to the public. It protects shopping centers and malls. I’m sure it misses a lot and needs fixing, but maybe this concept could work if refined. To be candid the provisions are a bit harsh but offered for discussion purposes. They are intended to merge into a sign code similar to the IMLA 6th Draft Sign Code that allows other property owners the right to place signs on their property and the dimensions and time periods for those signs. Let me know your thoughts and we can collaborate among those of you who might be interested. Section 1. Business location license. Owners of businesses regardless of any other requirement of law must obtain a license issued by the city/county for each and every location upon which they conduct business where the public is invited. Section 2. Multi-business location license Owners of property on which multiple businesses required to hold a business location license must obtain a multi-business location license. Section 3. No person other than a person holding a business location license or a multi-business location license may erect a sign anywhere in the city/county except as may hereafter be provided. Section 4. An owner of a multi-business location license may erect one sign at each entrance to the property on which multiple businesses are located of the dimensions and design as hereafter authorized and must submit a plan that shows the exact location of each such sign and the location of any signs to be erected by other businesses holding a business location license on the property. a. No person may erect a sign that deviates from the plan submitted by the muliti-business location licensee or at places different from the entrances to the property of the muliti-business licensee. b. No person may use a sign authorized under this section if it is illuminated or electronically changes its illumination except as specifically authorized under the provisions of this ordinance. Section 5. No owner of property on which a business location licensee operates and no other person shall erect a sign: a. On the property where the business location licensee is licensed to do business, except as authorized in this ordinance; b. On any property other than where the business location licensee is licensed to do business; and c. That is illuminated or changes its illumination except as specifically authorized under the provisions of this ordinance. Section 6. Signs existing at the time this ordinance is adopted and which by virtue of the ordinance are illegal, may continue to be used without illumination for a period of three years from the date of this ordinance, may not be modified in any form, may not be replaced and must be removed immediately three years from the date of the effective date of this ordinance. Charles W. Thompson, Jr. General Counsel & Executive Director D: 202-742-1016 P: (202) 466-5424 x7110 M: (240)-876-6790 <image001.png><https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/><image002.png><https://twitter.com/imlalegal><image003.png><https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> <image004.png><https://imla.org/> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/> Plan Ahead! IMLA’s 2021 Mid-Year Seminar<https://imla.org/seminars/>, April 23-26, 2021 in Washington, DC! IMLA’s 86th Annual Conference<https://imla.org/annual-conference/>, Sept. 29-Oct. 3, 2021 in Minneapolis, MN! _______________________________________________ Landuse mailing list Landuse@lists.imla.org<mailto:Landuse@lists.imla.org> http://lists.imla.org/mailman/listinfo/landuse_lists.imla.org