A billboard company’s bid to strike down Fayette County’s entire sign ordinance was heard by the entire 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta Tuesday morning.

Tanner Advertising is arguing that the county has denied its rights to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The company is appealing the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Jack Camp, who dismissed the case in May 2004. Tanner claims the county should have approved its application to erect eight billboard signs in 2003.

The county’s current sign ordinance does not allow for billboard signs. Specifically, the county restricts “off premise” signs to no more than four square feet in size, and they may be placed “no more than three feet off ground level.”

The permit applications denied by the county sought permission to erect six-foot tall “standard billboard size” signs on eight parcels Tanner Advertising had leased; all of the parcels were either zoned for either industrial or commercial use.

The applications were denied by the county zoning administrator a day later because they violated the county’s size restrictions.

Tanner attorney Adam Webb told the court Tuesday morning that the signs the company sought to erect were 672 sq. ft. each.

Tanner’s attorneys argue that the county’s sign ordinance uses content to regulate signs, a theory that has been used to strike down sign ordinances in other communities.

Laurel Henderson, an attorney representing the county, argued to the Circuit Court Tuesday morning that Tanner Advertising could only contest the county’s size and height restrictions, because that was the only basis for the sign applications being denied.

“We are not without remedy and we are not without the ability to fix problems with this ordinance,” Henderson told the court. “... Nobody wants to end up with 20 billboards where nobody wants them.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat said if the company prevailed in striking down the county’s sign ordinance, it could then erect the billboard signs to vest their right to the signage before the county commission could react to create an ordinance to regulate them.

Webb responded that the company’s intention wasn’t to strike the entire ordinance down.

Minutes before, though, he indicated something different.

“The Supreme Court has said, if you have standing to challenge one section, you have standing to challenge the ordinance,” Webb previously told the court.

One justice pointed out that while Tanner would be limited to a sign no larger than 4 square feet, a company that has a business could have a business identification sign of up to 50 square feet.

That was quickly rebutted by another justice, who said if Tanner leased the property, it certainly could set up shop as a business if it wanted to display a sign of up to 50 square feet.

The court did not rule immediately on the matter, but likely will issue an opinion ... or perhaps several opinions ... at a later date. The entire slate of 12 active judges, plus one senior judge, heard the issue, which is a rarity because most issues are ruled upon by smaller panels of judges.

After the hearing, Webb predicted that the vote would be a relatively close one.

login to post comments