Sign-Code Kerfuffles

First, ST would like to wish the best to all athletes preparing to compete in the 22nd Winter Olympiad in Sochi, Russia. Concerns about potential terrorist attacks have been well documented, and it’s been reported that the Games’ $51 billion price tag will eclipse expenditures made for every previous Winter Olympics combined. Hopefully, security forces will be sufficient to quell any terror plots, and the athletes will be able to compete safely in pursuit of their dreams.

Compared to the Herculean efforts put forth by Olympic athletes and the security officials charged with protecting them, signmakers’ tussles with local-government and code-enforcement struggles may pale in comparison. However, some administrators’ resistance to understand on-premise-advertising needs threatens the lifeblood of signmakers’ business (not to mention their clients).

This sampling of recent headlines underscore the challenging regulatory climate many signmakers face.

• In La Plata, MD, officials managing the Univ. of Maryland Charles Regional Medical Center recently ordered 36 banners to celebrate the facility’s 75th anniversary. They were installed on lightposts near the facility. However, after their installation, the town’s Design Review Board notified hospital officials that the banners violated the town’s sign ordinance because they were pole-mounted, according to a January 31 editorial on the Southern Maryland News website. The city enacted a $100 per-day, per-banner fine, which the center’s managers appealed. Eventually, the town council passed a resolution that will allow the banners to remain in place until June. The editorial also generally referenced general discontent among the local business community, and recommended the council revise the code, which was last modified in 2010.

• The Yakima (WA) Planning Commission announced an ordinance proposal that would ban new billboard construction in the city, and limit the size of on-premise, dynamic-digital signs (DS) to no more than 40 sq. ft, according to a January 30 Yakima Herald report. Also, commissioners agreed to outlaw animated content, and the screens that display multiple messages must have message fade, rather than having new messages pop up quickly onscreen. The article noted that the city will stipulate the owners of existing DS bring displays into compliance within five years.

• The Upper Moreland Township (PA) zoning board denied permission for a sign to be installed on a property adjacent to a religious store, calling the sign off-premise. According to a January 29 Montgomery News article, Russell Davis, the owner of the Catholic Shop of Willow Grove, had applied for permits at both 125 and 133 York St.; the store is at 125 York, and had leased office space at 133 York because it provided enough frontage for the desired sign message. The township had initially approved the application, and then rescinded it because the sign wasn’t installed at the actual place of business. This constituted a billboard, according to the board, which was not allowed in the area because it abuts a local park. When Davis attempted to show other examples of other off-premise signs around the community, township solicitor Kate Harper objected, and board member Carol Lauchmen quipped, “In zoning law, there’s no such thing as precedent.” In an attempt to sway the board, Davis produced a petition that he said contained more than 14,000 signatures that advocated the store should be able to keep the sign, and a store employee commented that many customers said they couldn’t have found the store without the sign.

Advertisement

• A January 28 Seattle Weekly article reported that City Attorney Pete Holmes announced his intentions to sue Total Outdoor, a nationwide, out-of-home advertising company, and several Seattle business and property owners. The company had purchased advertising space on the on-premise signs and used them for ads for off-premise businesses, a violation of city regulations “put in place to reduce blight and driver distraction”, Holmes said. The space was leased on exterior walls at several restaurants, an apartment building and the vacant site of a former nightclub; the space was occasionally used to promote the existing business, but more often used to promote third-party advertisers.