Laserfiche WebLink
that is "reasonable". For example, prevent repair if the cost of <br />repair exceeds 50% of the depreciated replacement cost of the <br />damaged sign. .... <br /> <br /> Comment: Such a restriction takes advantage of mother <br />nature, drunk drivers and other forces which attack non- <br />conforming signs. Old age is a very effective tool in <br />eliminating non-conforming signs. <br /> <br /> .~eqal Pitfall No 6: Fast removal of exDensive non- <br />conforming signs. <br /> <br /> Solution No. 6: A long amortization period, long enough to <br />create a strong argument that the sign owner has had a reasonable <br />opportunity to recover the investment. <br /> <br /> Comment: An amortization period may be more trouble than it <br />is worth. There are other methods of eliminating or downsizing. <br />non-conforming signs. Some methods might be sufficient for your <br />community, in terms of elapsed time and in the desired aesthetic <br />goals. <br /> <br /> Leqal Pitfall No. 7: Non existent or inadequate "findings <br />of fact" by the local government. <br /> <br /> Solution No. 7: Explicably state in the ordinance all the <br />reasons you can think of for regulating signs. Without these, <br />the court often has a difficult if not impossible time sustaining <br />a particularly restrictive regulation. Brevity is not a virtue <br />when it comes to stating the purpose and findings. <br /> <br /> Leqal Pitfall No. 8: Relying on the federal or state <br /> "Highway Beautification" Acts. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />