The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Egg Harbor Township (the “Township”) and the Township Planning Board, finding that they did not sustain their summary judgment burden regarding the constitutionality of one of their ordinances.

In Garden State Outdoor, LLC v. Egg Harbor Twp., 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 982 (App. Div. June 10, 2025), the plaintiff applied to the Township Planning Board to erect a digital billboard. The application required certain bulk variances, including a variance from Section 225-63C(4)(c) of the municipal Zoning Code, which required billboards to be farther than 1,000 feet from any interchange or intersection.

In its’ complaint, Garden State raised the constitutionality of this Section, arguing that the restriction only applied to digital billboards and other “off-premises advertising.” In analyzing the protections afforded to billboards as a means of communication under the U.S. and New Jersey Constitutions, the Court stated that one of the factors is that a regulation must have an “identified governmental interest” that is narrowly tailored.

In defending the constitutional challenge to the Township’s ordinance, the Township solely relied on the generic “purposes” section of the ordinance to identify the “substantial government interest.” The Court found that “defendants’ reliance on the stated purpose, without more, falls short[,]” of the factual support required.

Overall, a municipality that enacts content-neutral regulations restricting certain forms of expression cannot simply rely on the generic introductions to their zoning ordinances, without more factual support, to establish a substantial government interest that would withstand a constitutional challenge.