Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/1997

Home

Page 8 - October 10, 1997 Z.B. Signs - City cites company for displaying noncommercial billboard within view of highway City of New York v. Allied Outdoor Advertising Inc., 659 N.Y.S.2d 390 (New York) 1997 An electric company owned property in New York City in a manufacturing zone where it operated an electric supply store. Atop the store was a billboard owned by Allied Outdoor Advertising Inc. Under the city's zoning resolution, signs in manufacturing zones that were within 200 feet of, and visible from, an arterial highway were allowed only if they advertised a business located on the same lot. Allied's billboard was within 200 feet of, and visible from, the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, an arterial highway. A city building inspector visited the electrical supply store and saw on the billboard an illuminated double-sided sign that read, "Calll-212-COP-SHOT. $10,000 for the Arrest and Conviction of Anyone Shooting a N.Y.C. Police Officer." The inspector issued violation notices, concluding the billboard violated the city code and zoning resolution. The city sued Allied for creating a public nuisance and violating zoning regulations. It argued the billboard was illegal because the text directed attention to an off-site "business." It asked a court to order Allied to remove the billboard pending results of a trial. In response, Allied presented evidence that in 1990 the building department approved an "accessory business sign" for the location. The text of that sign, which advertised cigarettes, had since been changed. Apparently, Allied never got the city's approval to change the sign's content. Allied argued the city's zoning resolution violated the First Amendment because it gave greater protection to commercial speech than it did to noncom- mercial speech. In manufacturing zones near highways, for example, commercial signs were permitted if they advertised an on-site business. Noncommercial . signs - which didn't "advertise" any business at all- were permitted only as specific exemptions to the resolution. DECISION: Case dismissed in company's favor; order denied. The court not only refused to issue the temp.orary order against the company, but it also found the city's zoning resolution unconstitutional. It dismissed the city's nuisance claim against Allied. Th'e resolution violated the First Amendment by favoring commercial billboards over noncommercial billboards. In addition, the list of noncommercial exemptions improperly favored some types of noncommercial messages over others. Political campaign signs were permitted, but the "Cop .shot" sign was not. In each case, the city put greater value on some types of speech than on others. This violated the First Amendment. In addition to dismissing the city's case, the court prohibited the city from enforcing against anyone the sections of the resolution it had tried to enforce against Allied. q.I