Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middleville council adopts ordinance aligning sign rules with state obscenity test
Summary
The Middleville Village Council unanimously adopted Ordinance 2146 on April 28 to update the village zoning code’s definition and regulation of obscene signs to match the three‑part state legal test. Staff said the change reduces the village’s bespoke standard and clarifies enforcement; council members noted possible litigation risks under free‑speech law.
The Middleville Village Council voted to adopt Ordinance 2146 on April 28, updating sections of the village zoning code that define and prohibit obscene signs to conform with applicable state law.
Staff told the council the ordinance replaces the village’s prior language with the state’s three‑part legal test: whether an average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the material appeals to prurient interest; whether the material depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way as defined by state law; and whether the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The staff presentation recommended adoption to keep village regulation aligned with the legal framework.
Council members discussed the limits that constitutional free‑speech protections impose on local sign rules. One member said the change “solidifies their ability to fall back on freedom of speech rather than having our own bespoke definition,” but cautioned that rejecting certain language would likely draw legal attention. No members reported public comment during the hearing.
The council adopted the ordinance by roll call vote; all members present voted in favor. The ordinance language will replace the prior local definition and related prohibitions in chapter 78 of the village code and is intended to reduce legal exposure while giving staff clearer criteria for responding to complaints about signs near sensitive locations such as schools.
The council concluded the matter and returned to the regular agenda. The ordinance was recommended to the council by the planning commission after a public hearing April 7.
