(A) Generally; severability where less speech results. If any part, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, phrase, clause, term, or word of this subchapter is declared or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration or holding shall not affect any other part, table, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, phrase, clause, term, or word of this subchapter, even if such severability would result in less speech, whether by subjecting previously exempt signs to this subchapter’s permitting requirements, or otherwise.
(B) Severability of provisions pertaining to prohibited signs and sign types. Without diminishing or limiting in any way the declaration of severability set forth above or elsewhere in this subchapter, this ordinance or in any adopting ordinance, if any part, table, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, phrase, clause, term, or word of this subchapter or any other law is declared or held to be unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration or holding shall not affect any other part, table, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, phrase, clause, term, or word of this subchapter that pertains to prohibited signs.
(C) If any court of competent jurisdiction invalidates the application of any provision of this subchapter to a particular property, structure, or situation, then such judgment shall not affect the application of that provision to any other building, structure, or situation not specifically included in that judgment.
(D) If any court of competent jurisdiction judges invalid any condition attached to the approval of a development review application, then such judgment shall not affect any other conditions or requirements attached to the same approval that are not specifically included in that judgment.
(E) Whenever a condition or limitation is included in an administrative action authorizing regulatory activity, then it shall be conclusively presumed that the authorizing officer, commission, or board considered such condition or limitation necessary to carry out the spirit and intent of this subchapter, and that the officer, commission, or board would not have granted the authorization to which the condition or limitation pertained except in belief that the condition or limitation was lawful.
(Ord. 2010-01, passed 8-23-10; Am. Ord. 2012-15, passed 9-24-12; Am. Ord. 2013-01, passed 1-13-14)