Log in

Sign ordinance: Town responds to backlash

Posted 7/20/21

Following some critical public response related to a column pertaining to the sign ordinance discussion in The Times, written by Councilman Gerry Friedel, Mayor Ginny Dickey went to staff and asked …

You must be a member to read this story.

Join our family of readers for as little as $5 per month and support local, unbiased journalism.


Already have an account? Log in to continue.

Current print subscribers can create a free account by clicking here

Otherwise, follow the link below to join.

To Our Valued Readers –

Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe. The five stories do not include our exclusive content written by our journalists.

For $6.99, less than 20 cents a day, digital subscribers will receive unlimited access to YourValley.net, including exclusive content from our newsroom and access to our Daily Independent e-edition.

Our commitment to balanced, fair reporting and local coverage provides insight and perspective not found anywhere else.

Your financial commitment will help to preserve the kind of honest journalism produced by our reporters and editors. We trust you agree that independent journalism is an essential component of our democracy. Please click here to subscribe.

Sincerely,
Charlene Bisson, Publisher, Independent Newsmedia

Please log in to continue

Log in
I am anchor

Sign ordinance: Town responds to backlash

Posted

Following some critical public response related to a column pertaining to the sign ordinance discussion in The Times, written by Councilman Gerry Friedel, Mayor Ginny Dickey went to staff and asked for clarification on some points made by Friedel.

The number one question posed by Dickey was how many businesses were contacted for their input at key times during the process. There are two or three points at which public notice is required, such as P&Z Commission hearings discussion.

Development Services Director John Wesley outlined the steps he made in implementing the process. He responded to Dickey in an email, which the mayor provided to The Times.

“When I started the process of updating the sign ordinance, I met with my staff who had been enforcing the code and organized a small group to provide me with some insights on issues they may see with the code,” Wesley said.

“That group included our Economic Development staff, the Chamber, Sign Art (local business), a couple of other local businesses, and the State Sign Association. My focus at the time was on what was needed to bring the code into conformance with Reed (US Supreme Court case Reed v. Gilbert 2015); it was not about solving other issues that may exist with the sign ordinance, but I wanted to handle any obvious issues. That is why it was a small group.

“We met twice, once to receive some initial input and a second time to review some options on how the issues raised may be addressed.

“I did share an early public draft of the ordinance with the group to see if they had any thoughts regarding the draft ordinance. The primary comments came from the Sign Association.”

Those comments were primarily concerned about permanent signs, according to Wesley. They did not have any comment regarding temporary signs.

Dickey stated it is her understanding, then, that the staff meetings with stakeholders were by invitation and not a general call to businesses or stakeholders.

“However, there was representation, particularly the Chamber, who were aware the sign ordinance would go to the council after P&Z,” Dickey said.

Dickey said staff and the council recognized that the temporary A-frame signs are critical to business.

“Council was not planning to eliminate temporary signs, only restrict their placement in the public right of way,” Dickey said. “Many businesses are not affected by the new ordinance.”

Dickey went on to state that the sign ordinance proposals were brought before the council on three occasions between January and April, before the May 18 session when action was considered.

“The need to change the sign ordinance has been known for several years (2015), since the Supreme Court ruling banned regulating content,” Dickey said. “Previous mayor/councils did not address this.

“There were other legal rulings pending that may have affected the town’s local laws, so I wanted to wait for those outcomes, but nothing changed.

“(When) COVID hit, I spoke to staff and we decided to not enforce sign regulations until there was a chance to finalize our ordinance when the impact to businesses due to COVID diminished and the campaign season was over, which added to the confusion. And I didn’t want to have a meeting about signs on Zoom.”

Regarding the safety concern, Dickey said a lack of incidents regarding signs is not a reason to ignore the potential.

“Speed limits, crosswalks, yield and stop signs, clear sight lines, etc., are all preventative in nature, not to respond to accidents that already occurred,” Dickey said. “We do have a responsibility to keep people as safe as possible and with that goes reducing the town’s exposure to liability.”

Dickey also addressed the council decision June 1, to delay implementation regarding the A-frame, post and board and real estate temporary signs.

“A policy-making body amending an action doesn’t mean it was wrong to have passed it,” Dickey said. “Every aspect of this complex ordinance is moving forward except placement of temporary signs.

“Also, this ordinance did not ‘need’ amendments. The majority of council is accommodating the requests of those in the minority of the vote by considering exceptions and delaying enforcement.”