If the Church of the Good Shepherd wanted to post the Ten Commandments on its sign on Hunter Mill Road, it would take five days to broadcast them all.
Vienna church says county sign rules violate free speech
That’s because Fairfax County has a commandment of its own: Thou shall not change electronic signs more than twice a day.
So, after the Vienna United Methodist church posted three messages one day last month — offering refuge from the heat, then promoting its Web site and finally listing the time of a group prayer meeting — a zoning inspector called it a sin and hit the church with a warning letter:
“It is noted that the screens changed more than twice in a twenty-four (24) hour period,” the letter stated. “This changeable copy LED sign is considered a prohibited sign.”
The county offered two choices: permanently limit the sign to two message changes per day or remove it altogether.
At a meeting at the end of July, about two months after the church installed the sign, the county and the congregation couldn’t agree on a compromise. So the church, believing that the First Amendment also applies to the word of God, sued last week in federal court in Alexandria, saying the two-message limit violates the church’s rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. The suit says that the county’s ordinance violates a 2000 law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which prohibits zoning rules that place undue burdens on religious institutions.
“Under the county’s restrictive policy, the church must pick and choose which of its various functions can be displayed on its sign each day,” the suit says. “Such an impact is a substantial burden on the church’s religious exercise.”
County officials declined to comment, as is their policy when a lawsuit is pending. Several members of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors said they weren’t aware of the two-message limit and didn’t want to discuss it until they learned more.
“It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me,” Supervisor Pat S. Herrity (R-Springfield) said.
Neighbors, even those who said they don’t like the sign, said it seemed a waste of government time and resources to worry about the number of messages on a church sign.
“It’s a pretty small fish in the scheme of things,” Steve Hull said.
At the crux of the matter is a zoning ordinance that bans electronic signs that use flashing lights or moving text. But what qualifies as moving? The county defines it as changing a sign’s message more than twice in 24 hours.
“It’s just too restrictive,” Sherry Spinelli, a member of the church’s board of trustees, said this week. “It doesn’t make sense.”
She noted that the church got the proper county permit to erect the $37,000 sign but said it wasn’t aware of the message limit until the county’s letter arrived.
In addition to the lawsuit, a county spokeswoman said staff members also couldn’t discuss the ordinance, including its purpose, history or past cases in which it has been enforced.