Title
Ordinance to Amend and Reenact the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Hampton, Virginia by Amending Chapter 2 Entitled, “Definitions” Pertaining to Definitions Related to Signage
Purpose
Background Statement:
This proposed amendment will update the sign definitions of the zoning ordinance to conform with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015). In Reed, the Supreme Court dramatically expanded the types of sign regulations that are considered content-based and presumptively unconstitutional under First Amendment principles. The decision significantly restricted the ability to regulate signs, thereby requiring localities around the country to revise their ordinances to comply.
Previously, federal courts in the Fourth Circuit (of which Virginia is a part) generally permitted localities to regulate signs differently based upon the message displayed so long as the regulation was viewpoint neutral and not intended to censor speech. Accordingly, many localities adopted sign regulations that treated signs differently based upon the subject matter of the sign’s message. Through Reed, the Supreme Court held that “a speech regulation is content-based if the law applies to a particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed,” thus calling many existing sign regulations into question.
As a result of the decision, several provisions within Hampton’s existing sign regulations are no longer enforceable. For example, “real estate signs” are a distinct category in the zoning ordinance, which requires that such signs “must provide information related to the lease or sale of only the building or premises on which the sign is located.” Real estate signs are treated differently from directional signs and other categories. After Reed, such a regulation is not enforceable. Except for very limited circumstances where government interests are considered “compelling,” the City cannot dicta...
Click here for full text