Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 5 Citation: Central Radio Co. Inc. v. City of Nor folk, Virginia, 2015 WL 151611 (4th Cir. 2015) The Fourth Circuit has jurisdiction over Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. FOURTH CIRCUIT (VIRGINIA) (01/13/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether a sign ordinance unconstitutionally exempted certain displays from regulation (namely, works of art and flags and emblems). The Background/Facts: The City of Norfolk (the "City") has a zoning ordinance that governs signs (the "sign code"). The sign code was enacted for the purposes of aesthetics and traffic safety. The sign code applies to all signs within the City, but exempts: (1) any "flag or emblem of any nation, organization of nations, state, city, or any religious organization"; and (2) "works of art which in no way identify or specifically relate to a product or service." Under the ordinance, those wishing to display a sign are required to obtain a "sign certificate," verifying compliance with the sign code. Also under the ordinance, the City is required to issue a "sign certificate" if the proposed sign complies with the provisions that apply in the zoning district where the sign will be located. Central Radio Company Inc. ("Central Radio") owned property in the City. That property was involved in an eminent domain dispute. Central Radio placed a 375 -square -foot banner on the side of its building, protest- ing eminent domain. Following citizen complaints, the City issued Central Radio citations for displaying an oversized sign and for failing to obtain a sign certificate before installing the sign. Subsequently, Central Radio sued the City. It asked the court to enjoin the City from enforcing its sign code. It alleged, among other things, that the sign code was unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits, among other things, the making of any law abridging the freedom of speech. Central Radio argued that the sign code was unconstitutional because it exempted certain "flag[s] or emblem[s]" and "works of art" from regula- tions placed on all other types of signs. Essentially, Central Radio contended that in light of those exemptions, the sign code constituted a content -based restriction on speech, both facially (i.e., on its face as writ- ten) and as applied (to Central Radio), which was subject to strict scrutiny as to its constitutionality. (In comparison, content -neutral restrictions are subject to a lesser intermediate scrutiny.) The district court concluded that the provisions in the sign code exempt- ing flags, emblems, and works of art were content -neutral. Applying inter- mediate scrutiny, the district court held that the sign code was a constitu- tional exercise of the City's regulatory authority. Central Radio appealed. DECISION: Judgment of United States District Court affirmed. The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, held that the sign code was a content -neutral restriction on speech that satisfied intermediate scrutiny. © 2015 Thomson Reuters 3