Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 7 The Fourth Circuit has jurisdiction over Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. FOURTH CIRCUIT (VIRGINIA) (01/29/16) This case addressed the issue of whether a city's sign ordinance violated the United States Constitution's First Amendment right to free speech. The Background/Facts: In 2012, the City of Norfolk, Virginia (the "City") adopted a zoning ordinance that governed placement and display of signs (the "sign code"). The City enacted the sign code in or- der to "enhance and protect the physical appearance of all areas of the city," and to "reduce the distractions, obstructions and hazards to pedes- trian and auto traffic caused by the excessive number, size or height, inappropriate types of illumination, indiscriminate placement or unsafe construction of signs." The sign code applied to "any sign within the city which is visible from any street, sidewalk or public or private com- mon open space." However, under the sign code, the term "sign" did not encompass any "flag or emblem of any nation, organization of na- tions, state, city, or any religious organization," or any "works of art which in no way identify or specifically relate to a product or service." In other words, such flags and works of art were exempted from regula- tion under the sign code. With respect to signs that were regulated under the sign code, the sign code required that those proposing to erect a sign must apply for a "sign certificate" verifying compliance with the code. Among other things, the sign code restricted the size of signs. Central Radio Company Inc. ("Central Radio") was a radio manufac- turing and repair business located in the City. In relation to condemna- tion proceedings against it and several other landowners, in March 2012, Central Radio placed a 375-square-foot banner (the "banner") on the side of its building. The banner depicted an American flag, Central Radio's logo, a red circle with a slash across the words "Eminent Domain Abuse," and the following message in rows of capital letters: "50 YEARS ON THIS STREET / 78 YEARS IN NORFOLK / 100 WORKERS / THREATENED BY / EMINENT DOMAIN!" In response to complaints, City zoning officials ultimately issued Central Radio citations for violating the sign code by displaying an oversized sign and for failing to obtain a sign certificate before install- ing the sign. Thereafter, Central Radio filed a civil action to enjoin the City from enforcing the sign code. Among other things, Central Radio alleged that the sign code was unconstitutional in violation of their First Amend- ment right to free speech. They alleged the sign code was unconstitu- tional because it subjected their display to size and location restrictions, but exempted certain "flag[s] or emblem[s]" and "works of art" from any similar limitations. They also alleged that the sign code's provision ©2016 Thomson Reuters 3