Steinburg v. Chesterfield County Planning Com'n
| Decision Date | 29 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-1181.,07-1181. |
| Citation | 527 F.3d 377 |
| Parties | Robert C. STEINBURG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION; Daniel A. Gecker, in his official capacity; Sherman W. Litton, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
ARGUED: James Broome Thorsen, Thorsen & Scher, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Steven Latham Micas, County Attorney, County Attorney's Office for the County of Chesterfield, Chesterfield, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey L. Mincks, Stylian P. Parthemos, County Attorney's Office for the County of Chesterfield, Chesterfield, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge NIEMEYER wrote the opinion, in which Judge SHEDD and Judge DUFFY joined.
Robert Steinburg, a citizen of Chesterfield County, Virginia, contends that on October 18, 2005, the Chesterfield County Planning Commission and two of its members violated his First Amendment rights when the chairman of the Commission had him removed from a public meeting of the Commission. Steinburg commenced this action, contending that he was unconstitutionally silenced while speaking because the commissioners disagreed with the viewpoint he expressed, which criticized the way in which the Commission was conducting its business.
The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Steinburg was removed from the podium and the meeting because he refused to address the only topic for which the public hearing had been opened and because he behaved in a hostile manner that threatened to disrupt the orderly progress of the meeting. The court simultaneously denied Steinburg's motion to amend his complaint to assert additional claims and add a new defendant because it found that such amendments were untimely and would be futile in light of the fully developed record before it.
We agree with the district court that Steinburg was excluded from the public meeting because of his refusal to address the topic for which the meeting was opened and because of his disruptive manner, and not because of any viewpoint he expressed. Inasmuch as the Commission was authorized to set its subject matter agenda and to cut off speech that was reasonably perceived to threaten disruption of the orderly and fair progress of the meeting, we conclude that the Commission and its members did not violate Steinburg's First Amendment rights in excluding him. We also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Steinburg's motion to amend his complaint. Accordingly, we affirm.
The Chesterfield County Planning Commission, created under Virginia Code § 15.2-2210 "to promote the orderly development of the locality and its environs," conducts regular public meetings, which are generally videotaped for local television broadcast, as was the October 18, 2005 meeting, from which this case arose.
Some time prior to October 18, 2005, Robious Investments LLC, a developer, had filed an application with the Commission for an amendment to the zoning ordinance governing its development known as the Tarrington Subdivision. The application requested that the Commission change the zoning ordinance to permit development of homes with front-facing, rather than side-facing, garages. The application was scheduled to be heard at the October 18 meeting, but at some point shortly before the meeting, Robious filed a request that the Commission defer consideration of its application until the Commission's next meeting in November.
Acting in accordance with the Commission's bylaws, Commission Chairman Sherman Litton invited citizens at the October 18 meeting to speak only on the limited issue of whether to grant Robious' request to defer consideration of its application for a zoning change, and as Nancy Frantel, a county citizen, approached the podium to speak, Chairman Litton reiterated that the subject of the hearing was "just on the deferral." Acknowledging the limited subject matter, Frantel delivered a presentation in which she stated her support for the deferral request and frequently mentioned the garage-door issue. Her main point, however, was to express her concern about the presence of a network of abandoned mine shafts below the surface of the earth where certain sections of the Tarrington Subdivision would be built. Frantel spoke for approximately six minutes, without interruption from Commission members, speaking calmly and respectfully throughout. After Frantel concluded her remarks, Commissioner F. Wayne Bass asked follow-up questions because, as he later explained, he had not been on the Commission when the Tarrington Subdivision was originally zoned. Commissioner Bass and Frantel exchanged comments about the mines for an additional two to three minutes.
Before the next speaker, Mike Harton, approached the podium, Chairman Litton asked him whether he was in favor of the deferral, indicating that "I'd rather not hear the case tonight." Harton replied, "I will speak to the deferral, sir." Like Frantel before him, Harton mentioned the deferral of the hearing on Robious' application to reorient the garage doors, but then he too turned to the potential hazards of the abandoned mines. When Harton had spoken for about two minutes about the mines, Commissioner Daniel Gecker asked Harton whether he was in favor of or opposed to the deferral. Harton replied that he was in favor of the deferral and then attempted to resume his presentation on the abandoned mines. Chairman Litton interrupted him and stated, Harton responded that he wanted to show the Commission why he thought they should "reconsider this altogether when the deferral comes up," asserting that the abandoned mines created Harton concluded his comments by encouraging the Commission both to defer the case and to "look seriously at the dangers involved of building over a cobweb of mines." Again, Harton's presentation was made calmly and respectfully throughout.
After Harton yielded the floor, Commissioner Gecker called on the developer's representative, William Shewmake, to clarify the issue of the abandoned mines. Commissioner Gecker acknowledged that "this doesn't deal with the deferral, Mr. Chair, but since you have let everybody else speak long past the deferral issue, maybe we can put this one to bed also." In an exchange that lasted less than a minute, Shewmake confirmed that the developer had hired a firm to survey the property to determine the location of any abandoned mine shafts before development was to begin.
In response to Chairman Litton's invitation for further public comment on the deferral request, Robert Steinburg came to the podium. But unlike the previous two speakers, he made no effort to relate his comments to either the developer's deferral request or the orientation of the garages. Because it is the subject matter, as well as the tone, of Steinburg's speech that is at issue, his presentation is reproduced in full:
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Bob Steinburg, and I am President of the Old Gun Road Civic Association, which represents 600 homes in the historic Old Gun Road corridor. And uh, we have some, we had our annual picnic here last week, and I can tell you that there is a great deal of concern about this particular project, and uh, these are health and safety concerns that are not only environmental in nature, but you've heard a great deal tonight from the speakers who have stepped up to the bar so far.
Now I, I understand that you're not making a decision as it relates to this particular issue this evening, but I think it is very, very important to apprise you, if you are not already aware, that uh, this is an issue that people — it's a very volatile issue. I've lived in this corridor for thirty years, and I can tell you I haven't seen people this hot about anything like this, ever.
This is a very serious issue. One of the things that troubles me when some of these things are being presented this evening is a lot of bantying [sic] about back and forth by some of you who don't seem to be paying attention, or else are talking about something that perhaps, uh, might not even be related. And I can tell you that perception is reality in the eyes of many. What you are talking about, I have no idea. Mr. Gecker, you in particular, leaning over and saying this, that, and the other thing, but I can tell you from a perception standpoint from someone who is concerned, like myself and the others in this room, it's not very flattering. Believe me.
After Steinburg had spoken for less than two minutes, Commissioner Gecker interjected, and the following exchange took place:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Michael's Media, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
...the streets, sidewalks, parks, and general meeting halls, speakers’ rights are at their apex." Steinburg v. Chesterfield Cnty., Planning Comm'n , 527 F.3d 377, 384 (4th Cir. 2008). These locations occupy a "special position in terms of First Amendment protection" because, for "[t]ime out of......
-
Griffin v. Bryant
...a limited public forum ‘for the limited time and topic of the meeting.’ ” (footnote omitted)); Steinberg v. Chesterfield Cnty. Planning Comm'n, 527 F.3d 377, 385 (4th Cir.2008) (“In this case the parties agree that the Commission's public meeting was a ‘limited public forum,’ and we concur ......
-
Chase v. Town of Ocean City
...includes the streets, sidewalks, parks, and general meeting halls, speakers' rights are at their apex.” Steinburg v. Chesterfield County Planning Comm'n 527 F.3d 377, 384 (4th Cir.2008). Chase contends, and Ocean City does not dispute, that the Ocean City boardwalk is a traditional public f......
-
Daimler Trust v. Prestige Annapolis, LLC
...602 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 2010); Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 2008); Steinburg v. Chesterfield Cnty. Planning Comm'n, 527 F.3d 377, 390 (4th Cir. 2008). An amendment is futile "when the proposed amendment is clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face." J......