The Orion Township Board of Trustees has requested the sign ordinance committee bring a report back to the Nov. 7 meeting, for a possible first reading.
The committee has been working for the past six months to modify the township’s current sign ordinance, which may local business owners have told the board is unfair.
‘Any sign is a good sign for me, because I have none,? said Diane Couture, owner of Step by Step School of Dance, which is located across from Friendship Park at Clarkston and Baldwin Roads.
Couture said if the township were to allow some type of monument sign for that area, or what the new sign ordinance terms a ‘multi-tenant? sign, it would help her draw in new business.
‘I would just appreciate anything that we can do with this,? she said. ‘Even in my location, there are just five businesses, and one doesn’t even want to be on the sign.?
Township planning consultant Don Wortman, of Carlisle/Wortman, was at the Oct. 3 board meeting, where he presented the board with a preliminary copy of the modified ordinance.
‘There will be a public hearing held on this,? he said. ‘Right now we are just providing a draft.?
Wortman explained that the sign committee consists of representatives from the township building department and township planners, the township attorney and the supervisor.
Wortman highlighted some of the major changes to the ordinance, including the section regarding political signs, or what are now going to be termed ‘non-commercial? signs.
‘That’s a new section,? he said. ‘Another addition will be the process and procedure for reviewing sign applications. They are currently reviewed by the planning commission, and this would change that to the building department.?
Wortman said appeals would then be sent to the zoning board of appeals.
‘We’ve also had numerous requests for exceptions on setbacks, and what’s now proposed is, it’s the existing right-of-way, unless otherwise determined by the (road commission),? he said, adding that the provision should ‘eliminate a lot of the hardships.?
Trustee John Garlicki wanted to know if the modified ordinance would clearly address temporary signage, and Wortman said a new section would deal with that.
Trustee Michael Gingell had a concern about the new size limit for political signs.
‘No single sign may exceed six square feet,? he said. ‘That strikes me as a little big.?
Gingell noted that political signs also aren’t always picked up in a timely fashion.
‘This talks about removing the non-commercial signs, other than political signs, no later than 14 days (after they go up),? he said. ‘So shouldn’t political signs also have to be removed (after a certain amount of time)??
Township attorney Kristin Bricker Kolb said rather than regulating the number of signs, the committee chose to regulate the size instead.
‘What I got back from the board was, that’s fine,? she said. ‘But they wanted to put a limit on the largest size you could have near a residential dwelling.?
‘Now you’re driving down the road, and you’ve got one big sign after another,? Gingell said. ‘To me, that would look really tacky.?
Bricker-Kolb said the courts had repeatedly said (municipalities) have to allow the signs to be put up.
‘It’s a freedom of speech issue,? she said.
Gingell said it wasn’t his intention to stop anyone’s freedom of speech.
‘But people will be in complaining about it,? he said.
Trustee Matthew Gibb noted that the modified ordinance also listed the timing for placement of political signs as the time when the candidate’s nominating petition was certified.
‘So if they did that in March, they could (have signs out) all the way until the primary?? he asked. ‘We certainly don’t want a candidate with signs out for a year.?
Bricker-Kolb said the signs could even stay up through the general election.
?(The courts) struck down 60 days, they struck down 30 days,? she said.
Bricker-Kolb said the committee had decided on a time limit for help wanted signs.
‘It was an attempt to try to narrow it down,? she said. ‘The code enforcement officers said there are people who have the name of their business and phone number (on the help wanted sign), and are leaving them out to try to use them as advertising.
‘That’s not fair to everyone else,? Bricker-Kolb said.
She said the committee was leaving it up to the board to decide if they wanted to add language to the modified ordinance regarding monument signs.
‘I’d like to look at some options (for monument signs),? said Gingell. ‘Business owners have been asking how they can identify themselves in a certain place.
‘I’d rather have a well-done monument sign than canopy signs all the way down the building,? he said.
Wortman said those would be the multi-tenant signs.
‘I think the committee would like input on where to go with this,? he said.
Treasurer Alice Young said the township has a lot of small strips with 5-6 businesses in them, and that apparently the village allowed monument signs.
‘They are very tastefully done and they’re nice and easy to read,? she said.
Trustee John Steimel said he wanted to see address numbers added as part of the requirements for monument signs.
‘I think that’s very important,? he said. ‘For multi-address buildings, they put a dash.?
Young agreed, saying having the address as part of the sign was a safety issue.
‘You are more likely to get in an accident if you are looking for an address that isn’t on the sign,? she said.
Gingell said the board would need to get down to ‘brass tacks,? such as the minimum and maximum size, and the regulations for multi-tenant signs, in order to get a modified ordinance that was reasonable to everyone.
‘We need to get (the business people) to coordinate as one voice,? he said. ‘Everyone would love a 100-foot sign, but we can’t do that.?
Dywasuk said the board would welcome participation by business owners.
‘But we want to get moving on this,? he said. ‘We don’t want to drag this out for two years.?
Wortman said the committee was about a month away from having a draft of the ordinance ready for a first reading.
After a second reading is held, the ordinance could them be approved for adoption.