Laserfiche WebLink
of Covington, Ky. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. 708 F.Supp. 806 <br />(E.D.Ky. 1989). Also, see Donelon v. New Orleans Terminal <br />Co. 474 F.2d 1108 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 414 U.S. 855 <br />(1973). <br />Also, see the recent case of CSX Transportation, Inc. v. City <br />of Plymouth, Michigan 86 F.3d 626, USCA 6th Cir. (1996), <br />holding that an ordinance prohibiting obstruction of the track <br />for more than a specified period was also preempted by the <br />FRSA. <br />17 -1 (Definitions for signs chapter): A number of the definitions <br />in this section use incomplete sentences to establish <br />regulations. For instance, see the last sentence of the <br />definition of "bracket sign." Such should be rewritten, either <br />by adding a comma in place of the period at the end of the <br />preceding sentence and adding the word "and" preceding <br />"Not" OR by revising the last sentence to read: "A bracket <br />sign shall not be larger than 32 square feet." Do so? If so, <br />which type of revision would the city prefer, here and in <br />similar cases? <br />(Definition of "wall graphic "): Language appears to be <br />missing at the end of the sentence, i.e., "over." Over what? <br />17 -4 (Construction of awnings and marquees): If the city adopts <br />the 1994 Standard Building Code, note that § 3108.1.10 of <br />such code requires a clearance of 9 feet, as does § 230 1. 10 of <br />both the 1982 and 1988 SBC. Revise this to require a 9 -foot <br />clearance? <br />I' 17 -15, 17 -17 <br />(Sign permit fees and renewal fees): Current? <br />' 17 -22 (Immoral nature of signs): The constitutionality of this is <br />questionable on void for vagueness grounds. Perhaps, revise <br />this to read as follows: <br />' "No sign shall display any statement, work, character <br />or illustration which is obscene, as defined under state <br />' law, or that is otherwise unlawful under state or <br />11 23 <br />D <br />