Outdoor Communications, Inc. v. City of Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Docket: 94-5406
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; June 30, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
The case involves Outdoor Communications, Inc. appealing a district court's decision regarding a sign ordinance enacted by the City of Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Outdoor contested the constitutionality of the ordinance and sought to have it entirely struck down, rather than have unconstitutional parts severed. The district court denied Outdoor's motion for summary judgment, granted partial summary judgment to the City, and upheld some provisions of the ordinance while striking others on constitutional grounds.
The City had initially adopted the ordinance in 1990, which restricted the display of messages on outdoor signs. After Outdoor filed a challenge to the original ordinance, the City enacted a new ordinance. An amended complaint from Outdoor led to cross-motions for summary judgment, with a magistrate recommending the striking of four provisions. The district court subsequently modified this recommendation, striking an additional seven provisions, and upheld the remaining constitutional parts of the ordinance, leading to Outdoor's appeal.
The appeal focuses on the denial of Outdoor's summary judgment motion, which is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The district court's decision invoked the doctrine of elision, allowing for the severance of unconstitutional provisions without invalidating the entire ordinance, as the ordinance included a severability clause. The application of this doctrine aligns with Tennessee law, which governs the severability of local ordinances.
The lower court removed eleven subsections of the ordinance due to First Amendment violations, resulting in an ordinance that exempts temporary or small signs from fee and permit requirements. While exemptions for address plaques and flags were eliminated, size exemptions remain, preserving the ordinance's logical coherence aimed at public navigation, reducing confusion, and enhancing attractiveness. The district court's decision to sever unconstitutional sections while maintaining the remaining ordinance was deemed correct.
Outdoor argued that this severance imposed greater speech restrictions and effectively banned sign erection. However, the ordinance mandates permits and fees for all signage, with section 6(B) previously outlining exemptions, some of which were invalidated for creating impermissible content distinctions. Consequently, the revised ordinance requires fees and permits for more sign types than initially intended, though it does not prohibit sign erection. Individuals wishing to display flags larger than 4 1/2 feet square can still do so by obtaining a permit or variance.
The fee structure is not excessively burdensome, consisting of a one-time $10 charge plus $0.50 per square foot, with a flat fee of $15 for portable signs. Individuals facing financial hardship can seek a variance. The ordinance stipulates that erecting a sign without a permit, unless exempt, is unlawful, but does not outright ban sign construction. It allows for three options for compliance: obtain a permit and pay a fee, seek a variance, or erect a smaller exempt sign.
The ordinance in question is argued by Outdoor to infringe upon the First Amendment by effectively prohibiting the erection of new signs. However, the ordinance does not prevent Outdoor from rebuilding existing billboards within size limits, maintaining nonconforming billboards, acquiring conforming billboards, or erecting new billboards spaced at least one thousand feet apart along the newly completed highway. The City of Murfreesboro provides numerous alternative advertising channels, including radio, television, and print, which mitigates concerns about free speech under the First Amendment.
The ordinance is distinguished from the one in Metromedia, as it does not completely ban offsite signs or create content-based distinctions. The City maintains that its regulations aim to reduce advertising confusion and enhance aesthetics by limiting billboard proximity and controlling nonconforming signs. The court finds that the restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve substantial governmental interests and that alternative communication methods remain available.
Outdoor's assertion that there are no viable locations for new billboards is dismissed, as the City indicated that recent highway developments provide new sites for billboard construction in compliance with the ordinance.
Additionally, Outdoor claims that the ordinance's lack of clear criteria for variances constitutes a violation of the Due Process Clause. The requirement for clearly-defined statutory prohibitions to meet due process standards is cited, referencing precedent that emphasizes the necessity of guiding standards for zoning appeals and variances.
The magistrate determined that the City's ordinance regarding the Board of Zoning Appeals' discretion in granting variances was neither overbroad nor vague, a ruling affirmed by the district court. Outdoor contends that section 15(d) of the ordinance specifies criteria for denying variances but lacks defined standards for granting them, arguing this leads to excessive discretion. The City counters that sections 13-7-207 and 13-7-208 of the Tennessee Code, along with relevant case law, provide sufficient guidelines. The court supports the City's position, affirming that the ordinance is not void for vagueness.
Regarding the ordinance's prohibition on reconstructing nonconforming signs in line with height and area limitations, the Plaintiff argues this violates section 13-7-208(d) of the Tennessee Code, which protects preexisting zoning restrictions. However, the court finds this issue is not ripe for appeal, as the ordinance does not evidently contravene the statute. It references a precedent indicating that the statute applies to billboard businesses. The magistrate noted that Outdoor could have a valid claim in the future if it were to lose a billboard site without the ability to reconstruct or obtain a variance. Currently, Outdoor can still acquire or build conforming signs. Consequently, the district court's denial of summary judgment to Outdoor is upheld, along with the severance of unconstitutional sections of the ordinance, maintaining the validity of the remaining provisions. Additionally, the court dismisses Outdoor's argument regarding advertising restrictions for tobacco products, emphasizing that they can still utilize print media or conforming billboard spaces for advertising.
