Court Opinion

ID: 9713827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:23:21.350699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:20.783703
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
dissenting.
.1 respectfully dissent as to the majority’s conclusion that Ad Craft’s replacement of the old face plates with new face plates constitutes an “erection” or “placement” of a sign in accordance with Evansville, Ind., Code § 15.153.06.106(A) and (B).
As the majority notes, the provisions of § 15.153.06.106(B) require a zoning use permit prior to the erection or placement of a sign. However, § 15.153.06.108, which involves the alteration or removal of a sign, contains no such requirement. Rather, a plain reading of § 15.158.06.108 simply requires the owner of the sign to remove or alter the sign when there is a change in the business name, product or service on the premises.
In the instant case, Ad Craft merely removed and replaced the faceplates to reflect the new entity. Because this amounted only to an alteration of the message of an existing
sign and not a “placement” or “erection” of a sign as contemplated in' § 15.153.06.106(B), Ad Craft was not required to obtain a permit under the ordinance. To require otherwise, would amount to the regulation of commercial expression which the BZA acknowledges that it may not do. Furthermore, because I would reverse on the basis that Ad Craft was not required to obtain a permit, I do not believe that this court is required to address Ad Craft’s constitutional arguments. See Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398, 402 (Ind.1991) (appellate court may not decide a party’s constitutional question when the decision may rest upon a nonconstitutional basis), cert, denied, 502 U.S. 1094, 112 S.Ct. 1170, 117 L.Ed.2d 415 (1992). Because I dissent with respect to issue II, I am compelled to concur with respect to Issues I and III of the majority opinion.