Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/08/2015

Home

December 10, 2014 1 Volume 8 I Issue 23 Zoning Bulletin public service announcements could not be communicated through other medium such as a static billboard. The appellate court agreed with the Township. The court noted that the Ordinance did not ban all billboards but only one feature of billboards that was unrelated to the content of any message. To be precise, noted the court, "the practical effect of the ban was to prohibit electronic multi -messaging on a single billboard in the Township." In sum, the court found it was "essentially undisputed that a `time, place or manner' analysis [was] appropriate." The court further explained that, under the applicable standard, time, place, or manner restrictions are valid, provided they satisfy three criteria: (1) they "are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech"; (2) "they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest"; and (3) "they leave open ample alternative • channels for communication of the infoiivation." Here, the court had found that the first prong of the test was met: the Ordinance was a content -neutral restriction on speech because it did not ban all billboards, but rather, only one feature of billboards that was un- related to the content of any message. The court also found that the second prong of the test was met: the Ordinance was "narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest." The court found that the governmental interests served were aesthetics and traffic safety. As for being "narrowly tailored," the court noted that a regulation need not be "the least restrictive means" to satisfy the requirement that a content -neutral restriction on time, place, and manner by "narrowly tailored"; rather, the means chosen must not "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further" the content -neutral interest. The court said that the fact that the Ordinance banned all digital billboards did not preclude a finding that the Ordi- nance was "narrowly tailored." The Ordinance was "narrowly tailored," found the court, in that it "did no more than eliminate the exact source of the evil it sought to remedy": aesthetics and traffic safety. The court concluded that the Ordinance's ban on digital billboards "represent[ed] a reasoned compromise between serving the [Township's] asserted goals and allowing some [billboards in the Township]." Finally, the court also found the third prong of the test was met. The court found that the restrictions imposed by the Ordinance left open ample alternative channels for communication of the infomuation. The "lion's share of commercial speech" did not require an electronic multimessage billboard in order to have its message changed in short order. As E & J had pointed out, the only type of message identified as being adversely affected by the loss of that "advantage" was emergency public service announcements. There were other means available to satisfy the need for projecting emergency public service announce - 8 © 2014 Thomson Reuters