Laserfiche WebLink
sometimes allowed by "special use permits" or "conditional use <br />permits" Again, either do not allow requirements to be modified <br />or else limit the modifications to a fixed amount. ',.0 <br /> <br />~eqal Pitfall No. 3: Non-comprehensive definitions. <br />Solution No. 3: Do not try to create exemptions in your <br />definition of "sign" or in the definitions of particular types of <br />signs. Instead make definitions so broad as to be all-inclusive: <br />include everything; then explicably list those types that are to <br />be exempted. <br /> <br /> Comment: Next to First Amendment violations, faulty <br />definitions are the next major cause of the local government <br />losing in court. <br /> <br /> ~eqal Pitfall No. 4: Making reference to the message <br />content of a sign. <br /> <br /> Solution No. 4: Have two separate ordinances, to cover all <br />conceivable signs, both on-premise and off-premise; then make the <br />sign builder choose which ordinance he wants to govern his <br />proposed sign. Then apply the chosen ordinance. <br /> <br /> Comment: This may result in some off-premise messages on <br />some on-premise signs, but that will not create a problem if the <br />on-premise regulations are sufficiently restrictive as to size, <br />number and height of signs. <br /> <br /> Leqal Pitfall No. 5: Attempting to limit or prohibit the <br /> repair or replacement of damaged non-conforming signs without <br /> having specific criteria in the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Solution No. 5: Set criteria in terms of a fixed percentage <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />