Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 7 The Third Circuit has jurisdiction over Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. THIRD CIRCUIT (NEW JERSEY) (02/11/13)—This case addressed the issue of whether an ordinance that prohibited billboards was unconsti- tutional in violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The Background/Facts: Interstate Outdoor Advertising, L.P. ("Inter- state") sought to erect nine outdoor advertising signs along U.S. Interstate- 295 in Mount Laurel Township, New Jersey (the "Township"). I-295 is a major transportation corridor with three lanes of traffic running through the Township in each direction. Interstate filed development applications with the Township Zoning Board of Adjustment (the "Zoning Board"). Since 1988, the Township's zoning ordinance prohibited in all zoning districts: "[o]utdoor advertising signs (i.e., billboards)"; and "[s]igns im- mediately adjacent to interstate 295 and the New Jersey Turnpike." While Interstate's billboard applications were pending, the Zoning Board adopted Ordinance 2008-12 (the "Ordinance"). Among other things, the Ordinance prohibited "Billboards" "within the Township." Ultimately, the Zoning Board denied each of Interstate's applications. Interstate sued. It alleged that the Ordinance violated the First Amend- ment guarantee of free speech. The district court granted the Township's motion for summary judgment. It found that there were no material facts in dispute and decided the matter on the law alone in the Township's favor. The court held that: "the Ordinance was a reasonable means of achieving the Township's substantial interests of traffic safety and maintaining the natural beauty of the Township"; "that the Township enacted [the Ordinance] based upon evidence that it would advance those twin goals"; and "that the [O]rdi- nance was reasonably related to achieving traffic safety and preserving aesthetic." Interstate appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The'United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, concluded that the Ordinance's ban on billboards did not violate Interstate's rights as to commercial speech or noncommercial speech. The court held that, as to its restrictions on commercial speech, the Ordinance did not violate the First Amendment because it: served a substantial government interest; and was no more extensive than neces- sary to advance that interest. More specifically, the court found that the Ordinance: advanced the Township's interests of traffic safety and aesthet- ics; and that the Township -wide ban on billboards was "perhaps the only effective approach" to address the Township's concerns for those interests. In so holding, the court rejected Interstate's argument that the Town- ship's concern about preserving aesthetics was "overblown." Interstate had pointed to the fact that the billboards were to be posted along the © 2013 Thomson Reuters 3