Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/06/1999

Home

Page 2 -- June 20, 1999.-. ~' Z.B. , Free Speech -- Owner challenges ordinance prohibiting commercial signs in residential areas MICHIGAN (4/27/99) -- Schultz lived in the city of Rochester Hills. She ran a business out of her'home selling health and beauty products. Schultz's property was zoned single-family residential, but the city's zon- ing ordinance allowed home businesses as long as they didn't create a nui- sance, become more than an incidental function of the hohse's use, draw traffic other than weekly deliveries, take place outside the house, require paid em- ployees, or have any signs. Schultz attached a large yellow sign to a tree in her yard that stated: "Nu Skin and Interior Design -- Opportunities Available -- Earn Extra $ $ $." The city cited Schultz for violating its zoning ordinance by maintaining a sign for her home business. Schultz asked the court to dismiss the charge against her, arguing the ordi- nance violated her right to commercial speech under the First Amendment. Commercial speech was different than political speech. Restrictions on com- mercial speech were valid if the speech concerned a lawful activity, the government's restriction was justified by a substantial interest, the regulation directly advanced that interest, and the regulation was no more extensive than necessary. Schultz claimed the sign was an effective advertising tool and alternative methods of advertising had proven too expensive and ineffective. She also argued the ban on home-occupation signs didn't advance the city's claimed reason for banning them because the city allowed other types of signs in resi- dential areas, including signs at subdivision entrances, real estate signs, model home signs, political signs, and signs for garage sales, among others. The court dismissed the charge against Schultz, finding the city had the right to regulate commercial signs but couldn't ban them completely. The city appealed, and the appeals court affirmed. According to the ap- peals court, the ban on home signs didn't protect the character of residential neighborhoods as the city had claimed. It stated that banning home-bus/ness signs didn't stem the growth of home businesses, it just prevented homeowners from posting such signs on their property. The appeals court said the ban didn't advance the city's interest in aesthetics because the city allowed in residential areas a variety of other signs that were no more or less aesthetically offensive than home-business signs. The city appealed to the state's highest court. DECISION: Reversed, and returned to the trial court. The ban on home-occupation signs might directly advance the city's inter- est in preserving the character of its residential neighborhoods. The trial court had to give the city a chance to establish a link between the purpose and the effect of its ban on commercial signs in residential areas. Because commercial speech was different than political speech, it was