Court Opinion

ID: 9730259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:06:44.33818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:05.281222
License: Public Domain

Hall, J
(dissenting). The majority decides that a zoning ordinance prohibition of all “off-premises” advertising signs in a municipality with the characteristics and aspirations of Metuchen is valid even if “on-premises” signs should be allowed without restriction. While the controversy commenced over the right to erect two standard-size billboards against embankments on railroad property — one in a business district and the other in a manufacturing zone — for temporary leasing by the plaintiff to various advertisers, the challenge which the court ultimately was called upon to decide was much more abstract and broad. The two proposed locations and their surroundings became merely illustrative. Though confined to Metuchen and similar type communities, the ruling upholds an outright prohibition of all signs, no matter what their kind, size or setting, which do not refer to a business or activity conducted on the premises where located. I am concerned with the rationale upon which this result is reached, as well as with the intertwined problem of discrimination in relation to on-premises signs.
*9This is an unusual billboard case in certain fundamental respects not fully adverted to in the majority opinion which, when considered, seem to me to make the true rationale somewhat different from that expressed and in turn place the classification question in a different light. I refer to the fact that, by stipulation of the parties, all of the stereotyped reasons ordinarily utilized to support the use of the police power in billboard cases were removed from consideration. It was agreed that the erection of the proposed billboards would not prevent adequate light and air from reaching any surrounding buildings or dwellings, would not produce objectionable noise, vibration, odor, smoke or the like, would not conceal immoral acts and would not decrease the property value of land in the borough or change the character of the business and manufacturing districts. The only conventional factor not excluded was highway safety and the trial court’s finding in plaintiff’s favor on this aspect (the municipality offered no affirmative evidence to attack the opinion of plaintiff’s experts) has not been challenged.1 While these stipulations specifically referred to the two proposed signs, the argument of both sides indicates they were considered to have general application beyond the particular sites.
Accordingly, the municipality’s defense of the ordinance provisions, presented primarily through the opinion of its planning expert, offered an approach entirely different from that customarily used in these cases. It was, in essence, grounded on an “image,” if you will, in the minds of its own citizens and the world at large of a high class built-up residential community, with a quality local business district and *10a relatively small industrial district (with commercial business also permitted) on one border, which it desires and plans to maintain and even up-grade. The thesis is that off-premises advertising signs are a jarring visual note and do not belong anywhere in such a picture. It is basically very different and much more frank than the old, stereotyped police power shibboleths which led this court in United Advertising Corp. v. Borough of Raritan, 11 N. J. 144 (1952) to justify billboard prohibition by simply saying abruptly: “It has long been settled that the unique nature of outdoor advertising and the nuisances fostered by billboards and similar outdoor structures located by persons in the business of outdoor advertising, justify the separate classification of such structures for the purposes of governmental regulation and restriction.” (11 N. J., at p. 150) and “It is enough that outdoor advertising has characteristic features which have long been decreed sufficient to sustain regulations or prohibitions peculiarly applicable to it.” (11 N. J., at p. 151).
In reality, as Metuchen’s counsel conceded at oral argument, the thesis rests upon exercise of the police power, here through the medium of a zoning ordinance, for purely aesthetic reasons and purposes. The majority recognizes this to some extent, but seems unwilling to give it the exclusive effect which I think it can and should have in this particular situation. My colleagues dilute the concept by leaning upon the well accepted basis of economics, related to an alleged effect of off-premises signs upon the value of property throughout the municipality. Cf. People v. Stover, 12 N. Y. 2d 462, 240 N. Y. S. 2d 734, 191 N. E. 2d 272 (Ct. App. 1963), commented upon in “Zoning, Aesthetics, and the First Amendment,” 64 Colum. L. Rev. 81 (1964). I strongly doubt that the reliance is factually sound or a meaningful crutch in the situation before us. Effect upon property values in any zoning district seems negatived by the parties’ stipulation. But even if it is not, I find it impossible to think that a billboard in the manufacturing district can have any dollar effect on the value of a dwelling in a residential zone.
*11It seems to me that courts ought to face up to realities squarely and begin to give frank recognition to aesthetics as an appropriate basis in some areas for exercise of the police power to attain proper community objectives. See Dukeminier, “Zoning for Aesthetic Objectives: A Reappraisal,” 20 Law and Contemporary Problems 218 (1955). While this has actually been done for a considerable time, judicial opinions generally expound some other reason. Many police power regulations are upheld where the true but unexpressed basis is that the activity or condition is considered by practically everyone to be an eyesore or offensive to some other sense. Many zoning regulations actually rest on aesthetic considerations, such as those prescribing suburban residential setback and yard distances.
The concept is admittedly a most difficult one to put into fair practice. Beauty and taste are almost impossible to legislate affirmatively on any very broad scale because they are generally such subjective and individual things, not easily susceptible of objective, non-arbitrary standards. See Vickers v. Township Committee of Gloucester Township, 37 N. J. 232, dissenting opinion, at p. 269 (1962). But that does not mean that they cannot be judicially recognized in some situations as proper community objectives. It would seem that the approach could validly be made and legislation sustained squarely on this basis at least with respect to the prohibition or strict regulation of those activities or conditions which a court can find that practically everyone agrees are non-beautiful in their particular environment, so long as more important values are not overridden. Junkyards and automobile graveyards, except in a special setting, come to mind as instances. (They are prohibited by the Metuchen zoning ordinance.) See e. g., Jasper v. Commonwealth, 375 S. W. 2d 709 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964); but cf. Delawanna Iron and Metal Co. v. Albrecht, 9 N. J. 424 (1952); Pfister v. Municipal Council of Clifton, 133 N. J. L. 148 (Sup. Ct. 1945). And I think a court can properly say that we have reached that point with respect to outdoor advertising signs in many *12settings. The saturation of so much of the landscape with signs, both those with changing faces which plaintiff erects and those of all sizes and kinds conveying a permanent message, has caused a very widespread public revulsion because of their ugliness and marring effect. Blake, God’s Own Junkyard 11-16 (1964). The situation has become one of the “concepts of congruity held so widely,” as the majority puts it. Since zoning and other local police power exercise in this state is confined by muncipal boundaries, the predominant character of Metuclien seems to me to justify the prohibition of off-premises advertising signs throughout the borough for aesthetic reasons, and we ought to frankly put the conclusion on that ground. Whether similar action would be justified in other types of communities, as for example, in a large city with many heavy industrial uses, must await another day.
This leads to my point of difference with the result reached by the majority. The true basis for prohibition being aesthetics, the concept must extend to all similar situations and should be reasonably applied to on-premise signs as well. If not, the municipality is guilty of unfair, unequal and unreasonable treatment which would invalidate the off-premises prohibition. And that is the difficulty I find with the Metuclien scheme.
Granted that an owner or operator of a business or a factory, whether it be on Main Street or in an outlying highway area, is entitled to identify his ^enterprise and seek to attract customers or generate good-will an'd that the aesthetically minded municipality must accordingly put up with some non-aesthetic conditions, it seems to me that the local businessman cannot have an unlimited right to put up signs without commensurate limitation. I cannot find any such right simply because the sign relates to the business and, whatever the privilege should be called, it should not be denominated an accessory use or given nonconforming use protection (and indeed even off-premises signs do not seem to me a sufficient land use to be entitled to that protection). It is common knowledge that on-premises signs are frequently *13just as ugly aud offensive as conventional billboards, if not even more garish. Photographs in evidence in this case illustrate that such conditions do exist to some degree in the business districts of Metuchen.
I cannot read United Advertising Corp. v. Borough of Raritan, supra, 11 N. J. 144 to sanction unrestricted on-premises signs if those off-premises are prohibited, as the majority appears to. The court was careful to point out that the on-premises right was “subject to reasonable regulations” and went on to detail the restrictions in that ordinance which it characterized with the statement “that the municipality has strictly regulated all signs to confine their use to the reasonable requirements of signs incident to and part of businesses authorized on the premises.” 11 N. J., at pp. 150, 151 (emphasis supplied).
Courts elsewhere have gone both ways on the question. Some, like Metromedia, Inc. v. City of Pasadena, 30 Cal. Rptr. 731 (D. Ct. App. 1963), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 84 S. Ct. 636 (1964), sanction practically unlimited distinct treatment simply because on-premises signs relate to the business conducted at the site. Others forbid, and I think soundly, unreasonable discrimination. An example is Sunad, Inc. v. City of Sarasota, 122 So. 2d 611 (Fla. Sup. Ct. 1960). There the court said:
“Bearing in mind that aesthetics is the criterion hy which the merits of the ordinance should be judged, we find insurmountable difficulty to a decision that a wall sign 300 square feet in size at non-point [sic] of sale would not offend while a sign of the same size on one of petitioner’s billboards would, or that an unrestricted wall sign, at point of sale, would be inoffensive but one of petitioner’s signs would shock refined senses, or for that matter, that a roof, ground, or other sign could be only 180 square feet while a wall sign could be at least 300 square feet and, if at point of sale, unlimited.” (122 So. 2d, at pp. 614-615)
While the Metuchen ordinance purports to restrict on-premises signs, in my opinion the regulation is so illusory in fact that it goes beyond the bounds of reasonable differentiation when off-premises signs are prohibited on the basis of *14aesthetics. While the square foot size of single signs in the business district is confined to 100 square feet, the number of such signs on one property is limited only by the front footage of the lot. Eor example, in the B-2 district, an enterprise on a 100-foot lot can have 1,000 square feet of advertising sign space, with any number of signs in any place thereon, so long as no single sign is larger than 100 square feet. In the manufacturing district, if the property (and it may be a commercial as well as an industrial use) has a 300-foot frontage, it may maintain 4,500 square feet of advertising space made up of any number of signs. Any sign may be as large as plaintiff’s 300-square-foot billboards and erected anywhere on the premises so long as the top does not project higher than the maximum permissible height of principal structures in the district. It is obvious that there is substantially no recognition of aesthetics in these regulations and I feel strongly that such recognition must be given where aesthetics is the basis to exclude billboards. Compare the restrictions imposed by the Raritan ordinance. 11 N. J., at pp. 151-152. I cannot but conclude that there is consequently such unreasonable leniency as to on-premises signs in Metuehen that, as the ordinance provisions now stand, complete prohibition of off-premises signs cannot be justified. It is no answer that the municipality can change the ordinance if actual installations of on-premises devices get out of hand. That thought affords no legal warrant for present unreasonable discrimination. Moreover, it is well known that, as a practical matter, it is most difficult to tighten restrictions which affect enterprises operated by substantial taxpayers or local residents.
I therefore believe that the prohibitory provisions of the Metuehen ordinance are invalid and so would reverse the judgment of the trial court and decide in favor of plaintiff. I would, however, not give this determination effect for a reasonable period of time in order that the municipality might have an opportunity, if it so desired, to make the on-premises regulations appropriately stricter so that thereby off-premises prohibition would become valid. See Morris *15County Land Improvement Co. v. Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills, 40 N. J. 539, 559 (1963).
For affirmance ■ — ■ Chief Justice Wmntbaub, and Justices Jacobs, Fbancis, Pboctob, Schettino and Hanemajst — 6.
For reversal — Justice Hall — 1.

 There is at least one study which finds a correlation between billboards and traffic accidents. See Moore, “Regulation of Outdoor Advertising for Aesthetic Purposes,” 8 St. Louis L. J. 191, 197 (1963). It does not take an expert to appreciate that street and highway signs of all kinds can be distracting — indeed, purposely so — to the motorist. But this evil is not confined to off-premises advertising. Every automobile driver knows that equal or worse offenders are highway on-premises signs and signs in central business districts which obscure or confuse traffic signals.