Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 21 establish [that the ban] served a legitimate government interest and that the Ordinance was . . . narrowly drawn to advance that interest."In other words, the trial court found that the Ordinance's ban on digital billboards was "more expansive than necessary to advance the identified [Township] interests" of aesthetics and safety. The Township appealed and the Appellate Division reversed.The Appellate Division determined that the ban on digital billboards "passed constitutional muster."The Appellate Division determined that the Township's stated reasons for the digital billboard ban—aesthetics and safety—provided"a rational,objec- tive basis"for the ban and that the Ordinance's regulation of billboards was"no broader than necessary `to eliminate [the] heightened intrusive quality' of billboards." E&J petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification, which the court granted. DECISION:Reversed. The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the Township's ordinance, prohibiting digital billboards throughout the township but permitting static billboards to be installed in a zoning district proximate to an interstate highway, violated the free speech provisions of the United States Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution. In so holding,the court first noted that"[r]egulations on billboards are justi- fied because `signs take up space and may obstruct views, distract motorists, displace alternative uses for land,and pose other problems that legitimately call for regulation.'"Still,explained the court,the First Amendment"protects com- mercial speech from unwarranted governmental regulation." "The protection available for particular commercial expression turns on the nature both,of the expression and of the governmental interests served by its regulation,"said the court. Citing United States Supreme Court cases governing the standards of review on the validity of statutes regulating speech,the court held that"an ordinance or statute regulating signs, including billboards of any form, and affecting com- mercial as well as noncommercial speech should be examined in accordance with the Clark/Ward time, place, and manner standard" (as opposed to the Central Hudson (purely) commercial speech standard). Under the Clark/Ward time,place, and manner standard, explained the court, given E &J's constitu- tional challenge, the Ordinance here would be found to be constitutional if found to be: (1) content neutral (i.e., not favoring commercial over noncom- mercial speech); (2) narrowly tailored to serve a recognized and identified government interest(i.e.,does not burden speech more than necessary to further the government interest);and(3)reasonable alternative channels of communica- tion existed to disseminate the information sought to be distributed. Applying that test, the court found that the Ordinance here was content neutral since the Township ban on digital billboards addressed the "manner of 4 communication,not its content."However, the court also determined that the Ordinance's digital billboard ban was not narrowly tailored to serve the identi- lied Township interests of aesthetics and the safety of motorists. The court explained that an ordinance is considered to be narrowly.tailored"so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be ©2016 Thomson Reuters 7 1 K I3 jF