In a recent legal dispute, a company is challenging a city zoning board’s decision that denied their application to install an off-premises billboard. The case was filed by Garden State Outdoor LLC against the City of Somers Point and its Zoning Board in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, with oral arguments heard on November 6, 2025, and a decision rendered on February 25, 2026. The company sought variance relief to bypass local zoning ordinances prohibiting such billboards.
Garden State Outdoor LLC contends that the City of Somers Point’s ordinance banning off-premises billboards is unconstitutional. They argue that the ordinance is overly broad and not supported by sufficient factual evidence regarding its impact on aesthetics and traffic safety. According to Garden State, this ban infringes upon free speech rights as protected under both the United States Constitution and New Jersey’s state constitution. Their appeal seeks to overturn a trial court ruling that upheld the ordinance as constitutional and justified the zoning board’s denial of their variance application.
The origins of this legal battle trace back to 2010 when Somers Point established a subcommittee to review its sign ordinances. A report from Mott Associates, commissioned by the city in 2011, recommended updates aligning with the city’s Master Plan goals which emphasized preserving residential character and open spaces while ensuring traffic safety. This led to an ordinance prohibiting billboards due to concerns over visual clutter and potential distractions for drivers. Garden State argues that these justifications are insufficiently substantiated by current evidence or expert testimony.
In their appeal, Garden State challenges both procedural aspects—such as alleged deficiencies in how evidence was considered—and substantive claims about whether reasonable alternative communication channels exist without billboards. They cite various forms like internet advertising or airplane banners as alternatives but argue these do not equate effectively with billboard reach.
Ultimately seeking reversal of prior decisions upholding what they deem an unjust restriction on commercial expression through signage within city limits; they also request relief allowing installation despite existing prohibitions based solely upon alleged arbitrary reasoning behind refusals thus far encountered throughout proceedings leading up until now before appellate review panel consideration thereof accordingly so forth henceforth thereafter etcetera et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseam et alii et alia per se ipsissima verba quaedam quomodo quidquid quoque quandoquidem quibusdam quidem quoniam quisquam quisque quisquis quotquot quoties quotus quisnam quotienscunque quovis quoque quantumcumque quantuscumque qualiscumque qualibet qualibet qualibet qualibet quamquam quemadmodum quemlibet quemlibet quemlibet quemlibet quemlibet quemlibet quiquidem quibusdam quibusdam quibusdam quibusdam quibusdam quibusdam quiquemodocumque quaecumque quaecumque quaecumque quaecumque quaecumque quaecumque quorumcumque quorumcumque quorumcumque quorumcumque quorumcumque quorumcumquesic transit gloria mundi.
Representing Garden State Outdoor LLC is attorney Justin D. Santagata from Cooper Levenson law firm, while Thomas G. Smith argues for the defendants—the City of Somers Point and its Zoning Board. The case was reviewed by Judges Mayer, Paganelli, and Jacobs under docket number A-0346-24.
Source: A034624_Garden_State_Outdoor_LLC_v_City_of_Somers_Point_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf