The discussion on signs and sign regulations in Wilton may have taken an unexpected turn, thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision.
On June 18, the highest court in the land issued a unanimous decision in the case of Reed v. the Town of Gilbert, AZ. According to SCOTUSblog.com, that decision will limit the ability of any government from applying “differing rules to control the messages put on billboards and other outdoor signs.” In other words, sign regulations that place more stringent controls on one type of sign than another based on the content or message are unconstitutional because those are restrictions to free speech.
At the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on Monday, July 13, the commissioners discussed what impact the Supreme Court decision will have on Wilton’s sign ordinances.
Wilton’s associate town counsel Pat Sullivan, who attended Monday night’s meeting, explained some of the implications of the decision to the commissioners.
“I think people have operated under the impression that commercial signs versus non-commercial signs versus directional signs versus political signs, that somehow they were different in different ways–size, can I change the name on the sign? If it’s still non-conforming, can I change the message on the sign? Is it a first amendment issue or a religious issue? You have to get your head around all that stuff and then look at your regulations and say, ‘How have we addressed it, how do we want to address it and what are the parameters for addressing it?’” she said.
Commissioner Frank Wong tried to break down some of the legalese. “Broadly speaking, from my understanding of it, we’re no longer regulating content as much as this, that or the other sign. We can no longer say, ‘This is what you can have on the sign.’ It’s [just] this size sign or this type of sign–for example, a sandwich board is a sandwich board.”
Sullivan agreed. “In a broad context, yes.”
Town planner Bob Nerney suggested taking more time to analyze how the decision would impact Wilton’s sign code, especially in light of recent attention the topic has attracted from the community.
Sullivan agreed as well, given the unusual precedent of such a decision coming from the Supreme Court.
“Whether it’s a sea change or not, I think you have to plan your future for signs. To have a U.S. Supreme Court case as a subject is an ideal place to start. It’s not just a trial court case, or they did it in Idaho and not here; this points the flashlight right on it,” she said. “We should address it in a comprehensive way.”
The commission has asked for community input on the issue of sign regulations, and have promised a ‘comprehensive’ review of the sign code, after some business owners brought the issue to the public and to the Board of Selectmen. They have discussed considering possible regulation changes in response to business owners who have said Wilton’s sign laws can be too restrictive and make it difficult to stay competitive, and balance that with residents who oppose allowing signage to clutter roadsides and sidewalks.
P&Z chair Chris Hulse published an editorial asking for community input on the topic by July 1, and the Wilton Chamber of Commerce has also asked its members to weigh in with their opinions. Megan Abrahamsen, who owns Blue Star Bazaar and who has been vocal on the issue, publicly shared her ideas for uniform temporary signage and suggested changes to the regulations, which she submitted to P&Z.
According to Nerney, his office has received 17 letters “with varying opinions.”