Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/1996

Home

Pag, e 2 -- November 1996 Z.B. .i Fi~t Amendment -- Billboard owner says offsite-sign ban restricts free speech . : ~Ackerley Communications of Massachusetts Inc. v. City of Cambridge, 88 E3d 33 (Massachusetts) 1996 Ackerley Communications of Massachusetts Inc. was in the billboard busi- nesS~ for more than 100 years. Among its stock of billboa.rds, it had 46 "offsite" signs in the city of Cambridge. Offsite signs included freestanding signs and oneg attached to buildings that had messages with no relevance to activities in the building (e.g., "Great Gifts at Kappy's Liquors" on a sign attached to Joe's Har0ware). An onsite sign had a message identifying the occupant of a pre- raises ("Joe's Hardware") or the goods and services available there ("Budweiser Beer" displayed at a bar). in 1991, the city amended its zoning ordinance. Signs on rooftops, free- staffding signs larger than 30 square feet, wall signs larger than 60 square feet, and';projecting signs, larger' than 10 square feet all had to be removed after a fou~-year grace period. In defining which signs had to come down, the ordi- nance didn't distinguish between commercial and noncommercial messages. HoWever, under its "substitution provision" permitted signs could have any noncommercial message. ~When they amended the ordinance, City officials knew that when combined ::" wit~ state law, the ordinance regulated only offsite messages (those identifying ';'~':: :' a bmsiness, good or service that had nothing to do with the.premises). This was because state law mandated grandfather' protection for nonconforming uses, but ~xcepted from that protection signs subject to the state Outdoor Advertis- ing Board's jurisdiction. (The board regulated offsite signs.) ReCognizing the interplay between the ordinance and state law, the ordi- nance stated offsite signs more negatively impacted the area because they were bigger, higher, less attractive, and more intrusive. It also stated signs that iden- tifie~l things about a property, and signs that displayed noncommercial mes- sage,s, served the public interest.' Because all its signs fit into at least one of the ordinance's categories, the company would have to remove them all. From the time the ordinance amend- ment went into effect, the company put only noncommercial messages on its billboards in an effort to get First Amendment protection for them. After the four-year grace period, the city told the company to take down its sign~. · The company sum the city. The company asked for a preliminary order to stop ~he city from enforcing the ordinance while the case was pending. Accord- ing tO the company, the ordinance fav6red nonconforming signs with commer- cial messages over those with noncommercial messages, so it violated the First Am~dment. The court denied the company's request, finding the company didnlt show it was likely to win the case. The'coflrt said. the ordinance didn't make distinctions between commercial and noncommerclal messages. Instead, it dmtmgmshed between onsite and offsite signs.