Town Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening everybody and welcome to the March 16th 2026 Portsouth Town Council meeting. Tonight is a special meeting to review our new and improved siden ordinance. If you could all direct your attention to the entrance you came in, the entrance that is behind you uh to your left and also the one behind Mr. Ree. Should there be an emergency and we need to evacuate, you would please go outside and either for tonight I would go in your car since it's going to be pouring rain out rather than going across the street. And we'll wait for first responders to let us know when we can come back in the building. If you could all now please rise and join me in a pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence for our men and women in harm's way. Please.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you everyone. So tonight we'll be holding a public hearing to review our signed ordinance in order to make some adjustments and modifications to it. If you are going to come to the podium, would you please state your name and your address for the public record and also address any questions that you may have through the chair and we will direct them to the proper person to uh answer those questions. Do I have a motion to open the roll? Oh, roll call. Okay. Sorry. Mr. Thson here. Ms. Blank here. Ms. McDow

here. Miss um Patton here. Mr. Por here. Mr. Reese here. Mr. Hamilton, I am here. My apologies. Mr. President, I make a motion to open the public hearing. Second. All those in favor?

I oppose. Motion passes seven to zero. Mr. Solicitor, would you like to kick us off as to where we're at in this? I know we've had uh two hearings at the planning board who have uh passed it through to us. Uh you and your staff [laughter] have have made numerous changes and updates. Uh would you like to review some of those or would you just like to carry on in the public hearing, answer questions as we go? I think it's probably worth just just getting the public comment. I think we've um you know I I've been in a number of public meetings up to this point between the planning board and um and elsewhere and and uh have a sense I think of um you know the uh the the general commentary um that would get us to the point where we we can finalize this or you can finalize this. Um but I think you know this is an opportunity for the public to sort of weigh in now that there's been a good amount of time to digest this since the initial draft came out. Um obviously uh the planning staff um has has been instrumental in in making this happen. And I think if there was additional you know comments um you know that that Leah or others would like to you know restate you know in addition to the report that was part of the record um I think that's that's fine. But I really think this is a chance for the public to uh to have their input and um and we can see if there's something that um you know adds to the conversation and and maybe adds to your view of what should be adopted.

Thank you. Members of the council will have opportunity once we get through the public hearing, close the public hearing to make any comments or ask questions at that point in time. Uh if you do come to the podium again, please state your name and your address for the public record. And also please keep your comments and questions directly specifically to the ordinance and the changes therein. So the floor is open if anybody would like to come up and make a comment or a question. Please come up front, Miss Picket. Yes, sir. And if you could please uh when you do speak, speak directly into the front of the microphone. You can move the microphone if you need to. Uh it's a directional mic. It makes it easier for everybody to hear.

Um I live on Clear View Avenue and I've been there for 10 years and I've witnessed the corner for like seven years, I guess. Mr. Picket, just because I know who you are doesn't mean everybody does. I just need you to say Oh, I'm sorry. William Picket. Thank you, sir.

Uh 96 Clear View Avenue in Portsouth. Uh there's one thing that uh I brought up a few months ago when I asked to uh rectify this situation and uh but one of the things they told me the ACLU was there and they couldn't do it and so forth. Uh but there's an old soco sign that stands there and there's four rebars that are in the ground holding it up. They're rusted. There's no concrete base around it and I think it's ready. It could come down with the wrong force of wind or whatever. So, I think that sign should be taken down. Um, I feel very strongly about the toilet bowls and the fishing poles and so forth. And I'm hope hopefully that's

I'm going to ask you just to stick to the improvements to the sign ordinance and not Okay. There's several signs in that property that are uh disgusting and uh I'd like to have them removed. I think it's common sense to have them removed. Um and that's about it. Thank you, Mr. Picket. Appreciate that. We will follow up on the uh dangerous nature of rebar sticking up on the property. Mr. DPola 37.

Good evening. Members of the council, my name Mr. Dola, can you just pull that down a little bit so you can Yes. Just so you can we can hear you better. That's all. Thank you.

1074 East. Actually, my LLC I am here tonight to speak on the proposed changes specifically the clause and new size restrictions. While I understand the town's desire modernize the code, I urge the council to consider the following. One, respect for pre-existing rights. For years, my signs have served as a vital forum for personal and political expression, forcing the removal or reduction of established lawyerly existing sign less than a safety measure. My sign

missed it. Missed it. Mr. BP targeted effort phased out specific in a grandfather property rights are cornerstone of a fair zoning the burden of proof on safety the claim that these signs of traffic distraction is often sight actually I had a visit from one night at 9:30 at 9:30 at night. There's only four people on duty at that time. 9:30 at night, Mr. DP showed up at my front door. Stick to the sign ordinance, please.

Backed by data without evidence of a specific safety habit at my location. These restrictions appear to be contentbased, aiming to regulate the message by restricting the media. consistency and fairness for an ordinance to be truly contentneutral as required by the Supreme Court. We all know how the court system turned out last time we did. It must be enforced with total consistency. If the town moves to limit my first amendment signs while allowing larger commercial or real real estate display elsewhere, it risks falling back into the same unconstitutional pattern that litigation in the past. We're all very familiar with that situation, are we not? Recently, Portsmith approved a commercial sign and then a week after they installed it, they added on to the sign. And when I asked zoning, he says it's now a first amendment sign. So, we exceeded the 32 square ft. They added on additional probably another say 16 square feet and now that whole sign becomes valid and it becomes a first amendment sign and Portman since then has ignored that situation even after consulting with the solicitor he agreed with me but nothing has been done a commitment to free speech the first amendment is not a temporary right it doesn't expire after 90 days. It shouldn't be squeezed into a six square foot box simply because it is viewed as visual clutter. These signs are my

way of participating in our democracy. And as being an immigrant from Italy, I truly appreciate this country. and the Supreme Court has long recognized the home as a unique and protected place for such speak. I ask the council to reconsider the emotation period and ensure that any new rules respect the existing federal consent judgment which I have sent earlier today and the rights of all costed residents to speak their mind on their own land. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good evening.

Thank you.

As it relates to property in question and this change ordinance, I don't understand how Given the consent agreement that you pull with Mr. Bola, you are going to change the ordinance for every other resident, homeowner, and business in town, but allow him to get his consent agreement to continue on the way that he has. Another big problem that I have with that property is that not all speech is protected. I have come to the town hall. I have gone to the local police department. This gentleman has cyberstaled me to the point of using fake aliases and writing suck my dick terra on one of the signs. So if I have enough to hear it here,

that's not protected speech. And not a single one of you has done anything to protect me or the children that have to see that. Not all speech is protected speech. And frankly, it's appalling that the police department would not do anything about it. It's appalling that town hall would not do anything about it. And the amount of time that this gentleman wastes of yours with his nonsense took away from the building department doing really true important work. And I do think that his soco sign is probably the next piece of concrete that's going to give away in town. Mr. DPL, we're not going to have a discussion back and forth. Just one more comment.

She started talking about all this other stuff that's irrelevant to the sign, but it's basically my signs are are a rebuttal because of the selector enforcement. That's what it stems from. and allowing someone to build a house, an entire house without a permit in violation of everything else and has nothing to do about it. It does do it because bringing other matters. So that's what it has nothing to do with the signed ordinance. Yes, ma'am. Sir, sorry. I'm sorry. [laughter]

Um, my name is Timothy Donigan. I live on Clear View A. We moved there about six years ago. um uh 97. Thank you. Um my son attends Portsouth High School. He's graduating this year. Um he went to Portsouth Middle School. Um I come from this perspective of being a father in that neighborhood. I'm stunned that that was it's been allowed to persist as long as it has. Um I don't know, you know, Michael, I've seen him around. I don't know if he's a good man or a bad man. I'm not up here to decide that. I don't think he's a bad guy. Just stick to the

You know what I mean? But um I come from a point of having a son on that street and he had to take the bus which was provided for Portsmith High School to get picked up at the bottom of the street and the middle school. And we talked to the school committee to get him to go to the school through Middle Road. So he had to hop the fence and walk through the neighborhood because standing down there at the bottom of the street with all the swears and the verbal assault uh that he would have been exposed to is just absolutely unbelievable. um the situation that's going on in the world right now. I would have hoped that Michael having the opportunity and money that apparently he has would have utilized that space in a much more positive way to get any kind of speech and point across to the community with kids that are having a hard time right now in school and this just a situation in the world. Um, you know, I would have hoped by this time after four, five, six years that Michael would have had a change of heart and done something different with his signs and tried to bring some good into the community. Um, so we're heartbroken being there. My wife is on a trip right now or she would be here and she would be probably saying things a lot differently than I am. But I'm not buying all the the hoopla with Mike. I think it's some kind of a charade. I don't think he's a bad person, per se. Um, getting angry over this situation really doesn't accomplish much, but um, you know, whatever you guys can do to get rid of this would be great. And Mike, I wish you would have done something different. You know, didn't do what they did to, you know, wouldn't be here.

Anyone else? Anderson.

Uh, good evening. Uh, Stephen Anderson, 234 Headley Street, Maplewood Farm. I'm asking again for the council to consider all farms, farm breweries, wineries be exempt under the right to farm in the town of Portsouth under the sign ordinance from all of it. And I also would like to take have the council take into consideration the proximity of signs near school bus stops for children. I don't have any kids, but I can't believe these are coming out of my mouth. The proximity of a school bus stop or school zone for the children. We can only do so much to protect them. They have the internet. But you can do your job as a council. Again, I'm here so the farmers, farm breweries, wineries be exempt from all sign ordinances under the right to farm in this town. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Kath, is anybody online? Anyone else? And there's nobody online who would like to speak because this would be your turn. Mr. Speaker, if you want to go ahead and make another comment, if you can keep it to the sign audience, that'd be great. Thank you, sir. That was Tim, my neighbor, by the way. So, uh, I have to ask you to say your name and

Okay. William, I got 96 Clear View Avenue. Uh, I want to re-emphasize about the children walking down the street. Uh, my neighbors have children. Uh, and they walk past these this place with the signs and it's it's horrendous to these people. They don't understand why a person can have these signs out there and be so I don't want to get involved in that. But but so that's that's the children is the main thing for me and this distraction to traffic and it's people will look come by there and they have to look at what's going on there. There's more than just signs of course there but the other objects in there are really signs themselves of a disrespect for the people on on our our street in the town of Portsouth. So, I met Mike once. Uh, he swore at me once. That's the last time I saw him. But again, I'm half Italian. So, I I understand I guess where he's coming from, I'm not really sure though. But for from a human standpoint, you got to take the signs down to help the children distraction. And I think there's nobody in this room that would say that's they're okay. They're fine the way they are. Thank you.

Thank you, M. Just one more brief comment, then I'll stop. Mike De Mike Deola. Ironically, he's worried about my signs, but he's doing illegal electrical work that somebody else is doing that he's not doing because I know for a fact the guy that's doing it. So, ironically, he's not doing it. Mr. Dpiola, stop. Hey, Mr. Picket. Mr. Picket, stop, please.

We're not going to make accusations that are unfounded as per usual. Is there anybody else who would like to make a comment on the sign ordinance specifically and changes there, too? Last chance. Anyone online who would like to make a comment or have a question on the sign ordinance? Can we ask questions? Yes, you can ask questions pertaining to the siden ordinance. Yes.

From the microphone, please. Terra Woods, 39 Wind Rock. I'd like to know why the vulgarity and the speech that should not be protected has not been dealt with. Because vulgarity is in the eye of the beholder and the Supreme Court of the United States states that vulgarity is protected free speech. Not if it's sexually explicit. Well, if it's sexually explicit to yourself or to somebody else, you would have to break a specific charge against that individual. Well, I tried.

No, you would have to make a specific charge to the individual. I tried. I will refer to our

Yeah, it might be might be helpful just to to state the, you know, a bit of the background that that seems to be the issue that most people are concerned about when it comes to the sign ordinance, right? So, the town entered into a consent decree in 2021 um that prevents it from enforcing uh against uh uh Mr. Mr. Dale's properties in town. Um, and that was entered into, as best I can tell, I wasn't here then, and it was a prior council, but I I um, you know, from reading the record, it was entered into because the signing ordinance that the town had and has today, um, was not contentneutral. And so, um, Mr. Depe and his attorneys, uh, I think rightfully argued that, um, there were problems with the town ordinance that were in violation of of everyone's free speech. uh and first amendment rights. Um so part of the the the the goal in uh in making these amendments that we're talking about tonight is to get past some of those defects in the ordinance that made it more difficult to enforce just the basic things that you can enforce on time, manner, place, you the size of signs, all those things should be enforcable no matter who it is for any property of any type in in the town of Portsouth. um that consent decree was specific to one individual because he's the one that u that sued. Um and so I think what what we do by adopting this ordinance is give the town staff the ability to go back to equal enforcement across the town. Um and to address issues not based on the content, not based on what somebody considers vulgar or or what have you. As the president of the council points out, we we can't if you have to read the sign, then you're enforcing it wrong. That's the rule that the Supreme Court put down essentially. So it's not the content but time, manner, place, size, all those things you can um you can limit uh as any town should be able to to control the look, the feel uh whatever of their of their town. Now the the second question that

comes up is okay, at some point things bleed over into sexually explicit content that is not protected. Um that is a very specific and and uh a gray area, I guess, let's put it that way. So, I can't sit here and tell you today that any one particular sign, and I don't know which ones you're referencing, but I I can guess um would be um would be prohibited under the new ordinance. Uh but the town at least by adopting it will have the chance to ask that question, perhaps ask that question of the judge at some point. Um and up until, you know, since 2021, the town has had its hands tied in doing any enforcement on and really even though it was only a consent judgment with one constituent. I've read it.

The the the fact is that the judge pointed out defects that that were were judicially determined to be defective, right? That the ordinance was uh too contentbased and it wasn't enforceable even though it was only naming one person. It really wasn't enforceable against a number of um people in in in many ways. So, what the town is doing is untying its hands by adopting a new ordinance. U you know, we can't make promises. Uh I don't think the town can make promises as to what the effect will be or when the effect will take place. Um, but I can tell you that that um, you know, the this ordinance has been vetted uh by as many experts as we can get to look at it, including the ACLU, the the people that supported um, the lawsuit that got us the consent decree. And I think we've got um, something that is um, is going to stand up to constitutional muster.

Well, I hope so, cuz I don't think any Portsmith resident should have to drive by that place multiple times a day and see what I see with my name and telling me what to go do. I understand your your plight and I agree with you 100%. There's only one person that can fix that and he won't. Oh, I'm well aware. So, unfortunately, the mentality of a certain person is is what we're dealing with, not necessarily a sign ordinance.

Well, you you you know, I I moved here in 2021. I don't know who was all involved in responsible for this consent agreement, but it really did a disservice to a lot of Portsouth residents. I don't disagree with you and I I don't I don't want to see my name up on that board telling me to I understand. So, if this passes, I hope you'll protect the residents of this community because we deserve it. That is what we are trying to do.

And and for what it's worth, Mr. President, there there are other avenues. you know, the code enforcement is maybe not the best avenue for protecting uh anyone against those sort of things. There are harassment and cyberstalking and other laws on the books in the state of Rhode Island. And you know, I don't know any of these facts, so I'm not trying to weigh in legally. Uh but but I would certainly suggest that there are avenues outside of the the town council and the town planning and zoning department um that may be availed.

Again, I went to the police department. I went with photos. I went with all the direct messages that I received through social media. They wouldn't even take a report. All they said is it's protected speech and threw their hands up. So, I have tried multiple times to address this. And it's not right. All I did was have a difference of opinion about what I was seeing, voiced it online, and he took that as an opportunity to attack me. And this body allowed it. Mr. President, be Mr. [snorts]

I wanted a comment before this um woman left the podium, but um Mr. Cion, could you just tell us the general public, what changes will happen when we if we enact this ordinance as far as this gentleman here that's being complained against? What What will the town see next? What What does it do for the town? Uh well, you know, I don't I can't speak to the to the, you know, the staff and their time and priority and and and you know, next steps. Uh but as as a general matter, I can say that um upon passage of this, the consent decree will in in large part no longer be applicable because the language of the consent decree was that the town can enforce under its current ordinance. And this is this will no longer be the this will be a new ordinance. And uh yeah, I think we've addressed the concerns that the judge raised in the uh the case that led up to the consent decree and the language of the consent decree, however limited it is. Um but we've addressed uh I think the issues that that put us put the town in that bind. Uh and so now the town can go ahead and enforce again not against content, not against words or names or anything like that, but we can enforce against the time uh man or place, the size, how long a sign is up, what you know, whether it's uh uh a structural safety issue. All those things that any anyone in this town should be subject to in terms of code enforcement uh will now be subject uh will now be applicable to everybody in town. And it hasn't been since 2021. Will the um three-year sunset agreement apply to this property?

I don't I don't think so. I think I think the important thing can happen promptly. I don't think that three-year agreement um is relevant to the to that sort of issue. I think

um you know there there are u [sighs] I think that is for signs that were essentially grandfathered in to use a shortcut term, right? if they were approved uh prior under prior code or for whatever reason they were not compliant but had been approved previously. Um that's one thing. Um I think in this case it's a different set of facts. It is not there was never approval given for any of these things. It was just that the court said we can all we can no longer try to enforce um their disapproval and that is not get you in under the three-year time frame as far as I'm concerned. I, you know, I would defer to staff to see if they have a different interpretation, but no, I don't think that I don't think that comes into play.

Okay. Thank you. Any further questions, comments? There are none online. Um, council will have their opportunity once we close the public hearing. Once we do close the public hearing, there'll be discussion with the council to decide how we would like to proceed, whether it is to amend, make changes, or pass the ordinance as it is. Uh we can make changes and bring it back for a final vote at another at another meeting uh as quickly as next Monday if they're small changes that could be worked in overnight. Um otherwise, we do it at a future meeting. So, last chance if anybody wants to make a comment from anyone other than the council. Anyone else online, if you would like to make a comment, please raise your hand now. There isn't a delay in Zoom, right? Pretty quick hearing. None. I have a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved. Second. All those in favor? I opposed. Motion passes 720 to zero. I will ask the council for anyone who has comments or questions or um any amendments or changes that you would like to see whether it's time frames, sizes uh or anything to that effect. Mr. Reese, you want to kick us off?

Yeah. Um now Portsmith has state roads that go through um our town and I was just wondering now the the signs in Portsouth, but they're on the state road. Do they have to meet state criteria and then the town applies next? Because I would think that the state wouldn't want signs in their right of way like coming down East Main Road. There's so many feet on either side. And I haven't ever heard this this addressed. What right are do or do we have in that area or does any signs that somebody put on only get affected when they're on their property set back from the in terms of being placed in the right of way? Yeah. or the content in a right way.

No, no, no. Being placed there because I think the state doesn't allow signs to be put up in there.

Yeah, that's correct. So, it it's it's um you know, our ordinance applies on the properties themselves, right? So, that's that's one analysis. Uh if it's on somebody's property, then we have the right to regulate it. The state also has the right to regulate things that might interfere with visibility or or uh you know, per pose a danger on a state road, state highway. uh as we do on our own local roads as well. U I I think what gets confusing is that uh the the the boundaries of roads aren't often clear, right? So the 30 ft from the center line or 50 ft from the center line or whatever that might be may not be where the pavement stops and the grass begins. And so it's sort of a case by case basis. You have to know where, you know, where the the meats and bounds of that road are to know what's a right of way, what's, you know, what's potentially interfering with, you know, or on state land versus versus private property or town property.

Yeah. And I would just wonder that that would control what we can control as far as that because if we went after somebody, but they were actually on state land and not town property, and I don't know how they whether somebody's property goes all the way to the street, you know. Yeah. And again, that's case by case. It depends on the road and it depends on the property. But but yeah, we we we can't enforce a violation on a ST maybe well well when somebody Mr. DPL you can sit down. Your comment period is over. When somebody puts in a application for a new business y they have to apply for curb cuts on if it's on a state road and they would also have to apply I would assume to the positioning of a sign.

Yeah. If if the state would even consider that. Right. That's the question. I think that they have to put it on their own property, not in the state right of way. And and uh yeah, the curb cut, any any curbing that goes along with the driveway, all those things are DO's. And if there was an issue with it and it was placed in the wrong place, somebody could make a complaint to the state. Correct. And DOT would come down and look and see if they would correct it. That's right. But what I was saying, our jurisdiction wouldn't start until that defined point was met. That's right. If if it's up to the state essentially to enforce a violation of their own enforcing things that we don't really have control over because it's really a state problem and not a town problem. I understand. Yeah. And I think there's places that that has happened. That may be.

Is that all mysteries or all for now? Well, if you would like to continue or Go ahead, M. McDonald. Sure. Um, in in terms of the um the ordinance itself,

do we have an idea of how many nonconforming signs there are in town under I'm assuming that some people have probably been notified that their signs are nonconforming under the old ordinance. Do we have any idea going forward how many are in nonconformance with this new ordinance? I don't have any idea. Aaron or Leah, even a ballpark. Doesn't have to be specific. Thank you.

Good evening. Thank you for asking the question, Miss McDowell. Um, as for non-conforming signs, um, we had a conversation, uh, staff along with you after the the planning board meeting back in October, and you did ask that very specific question, and unfortunately, I don't have that number. We um, we go out based on complaints to look at signs. So, I would say maybe 5 to 10% of all the signs in town are are non-conforming if I were to under the under the existing ordinance. Under the existing,

correct? Okay. And do we have an idea under the new maybe? Because most likely it's more. Correct. It could be more. Yes. Yeah. Is that all? No. No. I mean for for Leah. Um probably probably. Um thank you.

Don't go too far. I just um I also wanted to talk about I guess my my reflection on the three-year sunset would be dependent on how many what I what we would consider how many are nonconforming right now. I mean if it was a small number um then the three-year sunset seems to me that it's a long time. um if it's if it's a great number, then we're going to have a lot of work to do bringing them into conformity. So, I guess, you know, I had I had hoped that the the town at some point would get an inventory of signs and um so that we could work with something like that because it it will it will will make a difference on this three-year sunset whether we are talking about a ton of people or just a handful. Well,

to to me it would make sense to it wouldn't make sense to go out and create a list until the ordinance is fully passed because if we decide that if the council were to decide we're going to change the ordinance from x square feet to y square feet, then they'd have to go back out and do it again. Yeah, I thought there might be a database that was ongoing once you got assigned. I mean that's what I can tell you that we have a working database of existing violations that have been sent out. You do have that. We do have that. And is that in the five and 10% range of all signs? Is that what you were referring to?

If we were to literally go up and down every street in town, which we just simply don't have the time for, um it would it would definitely increase. We, like I said, we we um

look into sign violations based on complaints that come into our office. Um the reason why we came up between uh myself and our assistant planner in Weston and Samson was five years is we had looked at um various um uh articles on signage what other communities have done and it ranged from 1 to 15 years. It seemed that the most number of communities that had an immortalization or sunset clause was between that 3 to 5 year um time frame. Anyway,

because it gave um the property owner enough time to realize that they had to do something um as well as our time to um provide the necessary enforcement after the time frame.

Thank you. Keep going. And um I I read the um the farm area. Um I forget now what section it's under, but in response to um you know the concern about the right to farm, I'm just wondering [clears throat] like those flags and stuff that are in that are seasonal put up that's still it's when I read it that's still okay under the farm uh area. Correct. It's let me just

It's under exempts exemptions. Yes. So it's still okay, right? Those kinds of things. Correct. It was at pre It was at previous town council meetings that um a a person came up and asked for um some ability to have this the signage that type of signage for for farms. Yeah. We purposely put that in there and we're asking for the council's opinions and thoughts as to whether that should stay. We work that in based on Yep. the feedback we got.

Mary, if I may, and just to to that point because it was a question I had as well. And Gio, I think you may have the wrong section of law in it. It's 2235 is the exemption when it comes to signage. Uh, not four. Yeah. Can you repeat that? Uh, Rhode Island general loan. Oh, on page 11 in exemptions H. I I Before we change that though, I think the uh the exemptions in 23-5, but it references back to the definition, which I think is in 234. Okay.

So, it it just may not be clear. We're not referencing exemption. We're we're referencing the definition of agricultural operations, which is in which is in four. Yes, you understand, right? And I don't have four in front of me, so I'm I'm guessing that that's the end. We may want to make reference to five just to make sure that one's covering the other because the five is explicit. I agree. That's that's much more clear. Okay. Thank you.

Yep. Thank you. And and if I could just add on that point while we're on the farm issue, um you actually have less flexibility than you would typically would have because this is a state statute that says you can't regulate around um seasonal banners and and agricultural operations. So, it's a it's a very limited exemption, but it's one that the state mandates that you have and whether you put it in the new ordinance, it's still going to apply. Um, and if if we tried to enforce against somebody with a farm stand with a banner advertising spring tomatoes, um, the the courts would not let us enforce that. Thank you. Unless it's one of the What if it's one of the feather signs? Well,

because feather signs are or flappers. That is okay. Yeah. I just want to make sure that everybody's hearing the same thing.

Well, yeah, that's right. I don't want to oversimplify. You're right. That's a great point. There there are still limitations and these are um on state right of ways. You know, there's there's other limitations in the state statute because obviously they can regulate their rights of way, not in theory the state should only be regulating their things. We should be regulating our things, but doesn't always work that way. Um [clears throat] but yes, and it's and it needs to be removed at the conclusion of the season, which it references, right? So that's a a very fact-specific um you know interpretation. Mr. McDow, you have more or you want to wait? Mr. Rev. Sure.

Um okay. No, I would like to comment on the agricultural signs. I'd like to see less control is in relating to the egg signs. You do limit them. And I I think you're trying to sell a perishable product in a limited amount of time and you need maximum visibility. You have to make all your money in a few months and you have to be loud and proud to do that. Egg needs much less control and visibility for a short amount of time. They were usually pretty good end of the season everything disappears and I almost think the egg should be exempt from the flutter flags and things like that because you're trying to attract attention to get people in because it's weeks that you've got stuff. So that's my opinion.

Yeah. And and let me just be clear that this this exemption that's in the draft now allows them to put the feather flags up, but limited. But limited. I mean, that's the thing. I mean, maybe that's not enough for your piece of property. Maybe it isn't driving your business enough. I I'd rather see them not limited or not. Well, maybe it gets crazy. You know, I was going to say we should have some limit. We can't have 45 of them out there for one. I don't think they would. No, I don't think so either. They don't have any money anyway. But Well, Miss Flight

um continuing the discussion of section 11H under agriculture uh number three where it does limit the number of signs um including the feather flags. Uh currently it is stated as two. I'd like to see that at 8 or six depending on the council's perview, but I'd like to suggest eight or six uh agricult subsection

letter H number three. And and if you're looking at that, I would say go down to number six as well because the the two flags limit is in number three, but then a single feather flag is um pointed out in six. So if you wanted to have more than that, you'd have to change it in both places. Yes. Page 11, uh section section section H, agricultural operations section 11. Yes, section 11 page 11. Sorry, I'm I'm looking at the red line. No, it's okay. And what was your suggestion again?

I think they seeing to either eight under H number three and number six. Uh those two items where it limits the number uh currently it is limited as two signs and then under six it's limited as one of the fabric feather. So if a particular farm was selling both pumpkins and potatoes, they could put up a pumpkin sign, a potato sign. If they had sunflowers as well, they could put up a sunflower sign. I would like to change both of those numbers from two and one both to eight. If the council,

you want to make a motion to that effect? I' I'd back a motion to do that. A motion to increase to eight. Minimum of eight. Maximum of eight. Maximum of eight. I'd like to say minimum. So, can I just ask a question? Yes. So, yeah. Okay. So, you want to do both of those to eight. So, they could have 16 total of different type signs in one area. Is that right? No. Number three limits the total number. Although it does limit to how many streets they're on. So if they're on a corner that would double for for a farm on the corner or on a corner. Yes. Which Yeah.

So then that would be Do you have a suggestion of the number? No, I'm just I'm just trying to clarify it. So what the total would be with both of those? If you're doing eight, would it be But so what she's saying is well you if you go to eight on three under six you're also going to allow eight feathered flags or is it going to be eight total combination of signs and the number of eight on both? Okay. So 16 total if it total eight total but they all could be feather flags or they could be feathered flags in a combination of others. Okay. But just just because Leah and I are going to be talking about this tomorrow. So H section three no

no no more than eight exempt agricultural signs. You want two to be eight. Correct. And then in section six, eight of the eight allowed signs may be fabric feather flags is what you're saying. Correct. Okay. Does that read okay for you, Leah? whatever your heart desires. Mr. up. Uh Leah, in that in re in regard to that area, I'm sure you've

seen others. Did you take this from others? Is this what the norm is? Is that why you have the the two and the one or the or you've what have you seen elsewhere, I guess, is what I'm asking. Other other towns or what has the Yes. Um, yeah, I believe this this came from maybe Gloucester or one of the other more rural communities in town.

I'm proud of the agriculture of our town and I would like to highlight it and agree that it is seasonal. Um, and I feel like it adds to our community. Uh motion to edit section 11, amend section 11, letter H. Um item three and six both to change from the number two and the number one to the number eight. Second. Any further questions or comments? All those in favor? I

opposed. Motion passes seven to zero. That was an easy one. Any others? This point. Keep going.

Question on um page eight. Are you looking at the clean or revised copy? Clean. It is under section eight. Section 8 PG. Look at that. Instruction and maintenance.

Yes. Um and then under letter E and then letter D, materials for temporary signs. And then number three um it is saying feathered flags, flutter flags, sail signs and similar vertical orientated wind activated signs are strictly prohibited. Um that would mean any other property but um agricultural right understood. Um I just wanted to hear when it was in planning board or the general purview of what you have heard. Um I I I feel like allowing one per business or one per property would not ruin the aesthetics um and would help promote small businesses in our town. Um, I am open to hearing from the public of if if there's an issue with these, um, or if you had heard anything while discussing it at the planning board. I'd like to hear if this if if it had come up. This had not come up in previous discussions. Um, some people may interpret the feather flags as visual clutter. Um, others may feel as though they could be um um a hazard if they it's if it's a windy day like today and it may pop up out of the the ground and hit someone or hit a car. Um that's why we have suggested that they be prohibited.

Yeah. Okay. Um looking for input from other counselors. I I feel like this is a good way for small businesses to help support them. Uh low cost and and if we again limit this to to one per property or one per business, um I just like to hear others opinions. I I support your motion if you'd like to make a motion on that. Um, I do agree with, you know, to help out the small businesses and give them a chance to promote their their business.

But if you're going to make the change, make it very specific to they can have one during open hours must be secured and you know, things like that so that we're not it's not being interpreted otherwise. Make it very specific to right the change you want to make, please. Sure. So, can I just ask um based [clears throat] on what you're saying, Mr. President, you're the the farm can put up their feather flags and leave them out overnight, but you're asking the businesses just come out and take it in. Well, most of the farms take them down when they're not open. So, I'm not That's But I I would think that all of them should come down when you're not open.

And the new the new statute says that they can only leave it out when it's open, right? So, for farms, regardless. Okay. Farm. Yep. So, you'd be asking the same for the business, right? Okay. Thank you. Some of the problems that we've run into with uh feather flags is a gas station that has a a coffee mug with on a feather flag. Um, we know I think the general public knows that the gas station sells coffee inside. That's that's what we're trying to cut back on. Understood?

Yes. But if you get somebody to come in and have a cup of coffee, then they maybe buy a candy bar or a donut or bottles of water. Understood. I mean, it our businesses struggle enough in town. No, but I I I appreciate the counterpoint that that's what I was looking for of what might not make this a good idea. Any other input on that topic before I make a motion? I

I can also just add for what it's worth that in and when I've seen this in other towns come up, it's it's um it's not every business that wants to put that up. And so some businesses that would prefer not to have more flags or banners or things like that now feel that they're at a disadvantage and almost forced to spend the money and and invest in the same thing that the competing business down the street has. And so it's I've seen objections on that point as well. That's you know it's just you're just adding to the cost of having your average business in in a town. Understood. Thank you for that insight. And I think we need to make sure that it's specific to the business that they're promoting.

Understood. I would like to make a motion on page eight under section 8. the letters that I got 8 E D3 regarding the feather flags. We'd like to make a motion um that businesses to amend it to say that feather flags uh and such stated here instead of strictly prohibited uh one is allowed during open business hours. specific to the business.

Should that be moved to another location rather than being underneath section three? Should it be underneath someplace else where it should be allowed under temporary signs? Does that make a difference in terms of We have a section like general regulations. Right now it's under materials for temporary signs. And Leah, can I ask just a clarifying question so I understand what what we're trying to draft here? Yes. Does this does this definition feather flags, flutter flags, sail signs, vertically oriented, wind activated,

does that capture the, you know, inflated arm waving guy? I was about to ask the same thing as you were getting out of your mouth, but yes, I it um it definitely is trying to encap I don't know what the official name of that but there's air that shoots up into that. So I would it's not necessarily wind activated. Maybe they're blower activated is blower activated has Okay. All right. So we're not asking that that be permitted. No. No. Okay. Just that those sales sites.

Okay. If I have an official term for that type of sign, I will add it in here. We can table it for now and discuss it later. Is there anybody want to do a quick Google search? The dancing man, the dancing man sign. Got it. Um, and somewhere else in here, I had seen a height limit for Flutter Flags that I would like that same limit also. So we

the the agricultural provision says 15 feet for the feather flag. I mean we could just we could just copy the language of the agricultural exemption which is uh 15 ft in exposed sorry 15 square feet in exposed fabric no taller than 12 feet on a pole no taller than 15 feet. So overall height of 15 ft. uh displayed only during the hours that the businesses open to the public, removed and furled at other times and set back at least 10 feet from any lot line and outside all sight distance triangles. So those four controls, I guess, might be worth copying into this provision that applies more generally to the feather flags.

Would it be possible in the future to come back after hearing more public comment on this if we table it for now? What? What? The public comment's over. It's just our comments. Right. If you want to make that change and ask Leah to put make the change now. No, you can ask her to make the change or we can bring it back and vote on the entire ordinance as the amendments have been done. Understood. I'd like to hear from the public just in general on their feel of that before putting the amendment in. We'd have to schedule another public hearing to do that. Could we when we bring it back have comments at the that meeting before we approve it? They wanted to schedule another public hearing. Yeah. Oh, it would have to be a public public hearing. Had to be advertised and be another public hearing. Waving.

So, are we not allowed to have more comments today? No. We got the neighbor. It's a It's a Skyman or a sky dancer. I I the chief the chief is telling me kinetic advertising device. Uh includes the in the definition that it uses a blower to to make it kinetic. So, I like that because that's what we're trying to distinguish here, right? It's not windacted. It's otherwise kinetic, right? I don't know. I'm not sure I I I think that Yeah, I'm okay if we want to table this as well for now and leave it as is. No, you give don't want to do this entire process. No, I'm saying. Yeah, just

rescend. No, you can you can make your change. You can make I'll do what I want. Is Jim is the uh Jim Rearden is the consultant. He is and he should be online. He has his hand up. If you can promote him real quick. Thank you. Hi Jim. Hello everybody. How are you doing this evening? Well, thank you.

Great. So, um I thought I would uh weigh in just a little bit on the name of that sign. Um I believe it's called an inflatable sign. Um, sometimes it's also called an air dancer, sky dancer, inflatable tube man, or air inflated advertising figure. Yes, we were able to get that here. Thank you. You're very welcome.

So, either way, they would not be allowed. Anything that is mechanically elevated or inflated would not be allowed. It would just be the feather flags. Madam planner, where would you like to between you and Gio? We got to figure out where to stick that. That's all. So the um inflatable tube man, dancing man would be under um prohibited

prohibited while the feather flags I think should be moved to under signs allowed without a permit. Okay. Did you get that request to resend that change? Apologies, Leah. You don't want to make that change? I do not want to make that change. So, you're I had just I had wanted information on that and and why it was there. Okay. But I I would like to take back that motion. So, it will remain that feather

remain as is. feather flags. Somebody else wants to make the motion. Hang on a quick second. Just problem. Charlie, you you made a motion and Charlie and you seconded it. Correct. So, if you would resend your second and you can resend your motion and we'll move on to Miss McDall. I'll resend my second. We'll resend my motion. Now, there's nothing on the table right now, Miss McDall. Okay. But now we have brought up um something that probably should be in there. Correct. More specific. Correct. Correct. So, right. Is inflatable too man. Yeah. The the sky man, the this man, the that man, you know,

any any inflatable mechanically inflated signs should be disallowed. Prohibited. Prohibited. Prohibited. So, does that need a motion or um Yes. To clarify that? If it's not in there, then we need It's not. So, I'm I'm assuming we should clarify that through a motion, right? So, I move that um we prohibit mechanical three or four different descriptors. Just mechanically inflated signs. Mechanically inflated signs. I think that covers the whole basic thing. I'll second your motion. Any further discussion on that? And that would go under obviously science that would be

8 subd sub3 or sub3 or sub4 sorry 8 sub e yes subd sub3 yes y so we're going to add that into feather flags flutter flag signs and any um mechanicallyated signs signs and similar vertically orient turn into wind activ. Okay.

There is already a second. Okay. So, Leah, can I ask just for clarification? Not that I heard this from the audience at all. Um, uh, how do we regulate inflatable Santaas on the front lawn in December? It's not a sign. No, no, we're not. Why keep talking? It's a great question. It's not a a inflatable Santa is not a sign.

They seem to be extending into all sorts of seasons. So, those are Oh, yeah. There's stairs. There's pumpkins.

Yes. Um, so I have um a question as far as the temporary signs. Uh, yard signs. Second. Oh, sorry. You're moving on before the motion is finished. There's been a motion and a second. All those in favor of banning mechanically inflated signs signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion passes seven to zero. Now you can go on to the next one. Thank you. Um so page nine. Um temporary signs. Are you in the clean or revised version?

I'm in the clean ver um clean copy. um at the bottom. So, yard signs, residential lots, um it says uh 90 consecutive days um no more than 120 days per calendar year. Um limited to two. Um I'd like to change that um at least to four for the limit. Um, you know, there's it's your own property and you know, if you want to put two different kinds of signs or three different kinds of signs, I think, you know, it's your property and you should be able to put what you like as far as where you

I'm at uh page chart. The chart? Yeah, I'm at the bottom at the chart. Yeah. Oh, yeah. And then it goes into page 10. Sorry. No, just I missed that. Sorry. Yep. So you're on the yard signs, residential lots, six square feet, four feet, maximum height, 90 days. Yeah. More than 120. Um, and up to two per 50 square feet of 50 feet of frontage, excuse me, not square feet. But you're ask I'm I'm sorry. You're asking two to four. Yeah.

Charlene, if you don't mind, if I could just piggyback on your comment. So, that's a section I actually had a problem with. And I'm just thinking about recent developments that have happened in Pucket and in uh South Kingtown when it came to having those limitations, especially the 120, which is actually the exact time that a Supreme Court case said that you could not limit political speech in town. And uh so I'm just I'm just curious if we're doing that just on residential lots. Um, I'm thinking about my original thought when researching this one section was as much as I don't want to think about COVID, when my kids had a sign out that said, "Thank you teachers." They had it out all school year. According to this,

we hit the max duration halfway into the school about halfway into the school year. Um, so I I agree with Councilwoman Patton about we we do need to I I think this section does need to be amended and just because I think like we're probably going to be opening up ourselves to an unnecessary can of worms. Sorry. My suggestion would be when it comes to yard signs on residential lots by removing the max duration and the quantity limit, making it unlimited.

Oh yeah. My my question out of curiosity is how do you how do you monitor that? You it's like park parking in an illegal zone. You can put a chalk mark and come back in three hours. How do you do this 90120 days and is that just going to be a burden? So we we have we have particular individuals and emails that we receive constantly telling us about violations that happen in town all the time. It's not all of them. All of our zoning in general is complaint based. So people make a complaint about somebody or something and then staff goes and looks at it.

Charlene, what was the number you had wanted to go to? Two to one. Four. She wanted to go two to four. My suggestion was to remove the day limitations on both of them and remove the number restriction. I I feel like there still should be a quantity limit. Um question for clarification uh where it says up to two per 50 feet of street frontage. Does that mean if you have more than 50 feet of street frontage you would have x times however yes you had 100 feet you'd have four every 50 you have

yes so four and then it would change if she wants four then you'd have what twice that amount if we change it can we just put the up to four do we have to put the 50 foot of street footage in there you do whatever you I guess I I would rather I would be have to leave it at four per 50 ft. Okay. Yeah, I think four per 50 ft is more reasonable. Mhm. I mean, we're still going to have people complain that I can't can't put a if you if you keep the time limit, I think the time limit should go away personally as well.

Um and give people a right to express their views on their own personal property. Well, with the 90 consecutive days, if you have, and I'll just go for the political signage, if you have somebody who has to run in a primary here in Rhode Island, that's the first week of September. Those signs are going to be out in August, and the election is not till November. You're already at 120 days, right? By this ordinance, they would have to take their signs down before the election. And legally speaking, the election actually starts on the first day of declarations. So, Miss Patton, do you want to make a motion about the sign? we can go to eliminating the time frame max duration.

Sure. Um I'll make a motion that on page nine under the yard sign residential lots um we remove the um duration and just make it unlimited and up to um four uh signs per 50 uh feet of street footage. Second. Are we doing this for residential and non-residential? There you go. Oh, just residential. Um, I was looking at residential. We'll we'll tackle that one next. I was doing res. Okay, thanks.

So, the motion is to uh remove the restrictions of time on yard signs for residential lots and maximum of four per 50 feet of frontage. All those in favor? I

I opposed. Motion passes seven to zero. Now, Mr. Gleason, would you like to do the same to non-residential lots which has a larger square foot of face, meaning if somebody wanted to put them on their business property? Trying to think. I mean, they should have the same privilege that residential person would have, but I think it would be a little excessive because they're going to have typically more frontage. Um, I I I guess I'd like to make make a motion to eliminate the time frame duration on the non-residential lots and leave the signage as is. I mean, I'm hoping this

Sorry. For clarification, for clarification, you want to keep it non-residential lots, remove the duration, but keep the quantity limit up to two per. Okay. Just wanted to make sure just cuz uh I'll second that. Yeah. My only concern with this is that we'll have especially the square footage is a lot larger on the non-residential lot. You have 12 square feet as opposed to six square feet, which is a much larger size. Um, and if we un if we make it unlimited, we'll have signs. I mean, well, we already do now. Signs that are out there forever.

We do have, if you don't mind, Mr. President, we do have signs there forever, but I think that there are rules and regulations when it comes to the maintenance of signs that are in this ordinance now that I think gives a little bit more um I would say there's ensures a little bit more compliance to those that are on non-residential lots. So, if a flag a let's say an H frame breaks and you got a sign going up there, it is now on everyone to be able to repair that within the 48 hour time limit before or assuming that a complaint gets filed.

The other thing, I guess this is a question that Leah might be able to comment on it. It seems to me in the planning board notes there was a conversation about the commercial signs because some contractors use them to block the public view while the lots are being built that they ultimately go away. Wasn't that part of their discussion? Uh, one of the the planning board members did bring that up. I did not modify that within within the uh, proposed ordinance here. I didn't necessarily agree. Construction uh, signs are essentially temporary and they do come down. If you feel otherwise, feel free to bring it up.

So, that's actually different from non-residential lots, but it could apply. I think they were referring to when they put a subdivision fence up around a property that like the senior center had fence all the way around and then being put their sign all the way around it so you couldn't see on what was going on. So which helps. Well, that's specific to the construction part. That's correct. All right. Thank you.

I think on this one that I I feel like the time limit is still is still a good thing to have. And can I just ask, and I should have noticed this a few minutes ago, but you know, the category that we're looking at here is temporary signs. And so if we're taking away a time limit, then it's not really a temporary sign anymore. Um, so even in the one we just approved on the residential lots. Really, what you're saying is that you can have four political campaign signs or whatever, the small, you know, 2x3s year round. And so it's not really temporary. Okay. So, I'm wondering if that really should be moved to to a different section or could you call it something else?

Call it something else. Um I I just posed the question. Um do we want to look like Cranston and Johnston during do we want to look like Cranston and Johnston during political season? Uh I I I will say as much as I know where you're going with with this, I don't think the Supreme Court will care if we look like Johnson or Cranston. But just saying, you know, to to Gio's point, maybe going back and doing six months instead of since, you know, like you said, the election season starts on June

June 26ish. I don't know what day it is this year. It's somewhere in that ballpark. What? uh primary. No, for declaration uh declarations uh June 22nd. So So if we did six months, that would take us till right after Thanksgiving. But if if you're in the primary and then you make it to the real election, I don't not into politics. Then June, July, August, September, October, November, then six months. Yeah. first Tuesday, but after the first one, so that would make the match duration 180 days.

Can I just throw a curveball into that whole thing? Um, I guess under this particular spot here of temporary signs, you would have yard sale signs in there. I don't think you'd want them up for x amount of days, you know. So, we've taken the time limit off them. Political signs. I I guess what I'm suggesting is why don't we have a specific se section about yard sale signs rules and regs regarding them and political signs and just have them stand alone. We took away political signs. You don't want to talk about political signs. They fall under temporary signs.

It goes back to that that basic provision. If you ever read the sign to enforce your law, you've violated the first amendment. So it's it's the content can't matter. Okay. So political science now can stay on residential lots forever, right? Based on the amendment that we just and yard sales signs as well. Yes. Okay. So you could re, you know, move to reconsider that and limit it to six months or nine months and and that certainly covers your whole campaign season and then it would fit again under temporary, right? So at some point that sign has to come off every year, you know, do it for three months in the winter, whatever. I think 6 months is I think six months is adequate.

I think we should leave non-residential lots as is and then once we vote on that possibly revisit the residential lots. Is it easier for days or months? Is it specific 180 days? I mean I think days is easier. Okay. And we'll go with 30-day months. Days to months though. Okay. So 6 months, 30 days, 180 days. Yes. Okay. We have to vote on non-residential. The way I left it was we've removed the time frame. So left the quantity of signs but remove the time frame. Correct. Correct. Okay. But you can resend that motion

or friendly amendment to that or amend it to the 180 days to match the if we go back to the residential signs and and make that 180. Uh, let's just vote on it the way it is. I'm not going to agree with 180 on the residential. Oh, sorry. We're still on non-residential, right? We're still want to go back and make the match. I'm not going to vote for that one either. So, that's just my preference. So, Dave, are you going to keep non-residential the same? No. Right now, non-residential on the floor is removing the time frame. Yes, that's the motion. That's correct. That's the motion. Second. All right. All those in favor? I I opposed nay.

The motion was now for both. No. No. It is not. Right now it is a three-3 tie because you didn't say yay or nay. Miss Mcdow with microphone please. But the motion is unlimited. Correct. Yes. But since it is now a three-3 tie with a non I'm not for I want six months. So So the motion So you're you're a nay. Yes. Thank you. So the motion fails three to four. Mr. President, can I get a motion to reconsider the vote on the residential lots? Very second. Second.

Those in favor? I oppose. No. Okay. The motion to reconsider is 5 by the two. Would you like to create your new motion, please? Yes. I would like to go I would like to amend the max duration on the site. I think that the six-month period is adequate and addresses some of the concerns. So, your motion is to change the max duration is to 180 days. Yes. Is there a second for that? Second.

All those. So, I just want to comment on I'm not I'm not going to vote in support of that because I just think it takes away a person's ability to put a sign for what they may believe in whether it's political or anti something or other or I got something for sale here on their own personal property. So, so I'm not so I could I could I see your point, but I think the fact that we say 180 consecutive days, but we're not maxing it out, it literally will still allow for someone to pull it off for a day and put it back on. It does. So it doesn't necessarily it creates a duration but it doesn't cap. And I think that when when talking about Supreme Court cases, the cap was the issue.

Okay. So if you could just repeat that motion again. The motion is the max duration is 180 consecutive days. Okay. And not not adding more after that. Thanks. I would I would support that. Okay. Good. Okay. All right. Can you repeat who motion? Second motion. The motion was to consider. Second and then second. Thank you. For 180 days to be the max duration consecutive days. The reconsideration. No. Um the non-residential residential 5 to it was 3 to four. That was 3 to four. But then

5 to2 it was for reconsideration was David and Charlene. Well, it was sorry. It was to eliminate the time frame. That was Charlene and myself were against that. So, the current motion on the floor is go to 180 days maximum consecutive underneath the yard signs residentials. All those in favor? I opposed. Motion passes 6 to one. Mr. President, can I get a motion to reconsider on the yard signs non-residential lots? what

to make the to make the non-residential but the purpose is to make I'll go ahead and say it's to make the non-residential lots and the residential lots the same to make them equal at the 180 days. Second on the motion. So the motion is to reconsider the previous vote on the non-residential lots of not changing the time frame or changing the time frame to to equal v2. Well, at this point it's just a motion to reconsider. Motion to reconsider. All those in favor? I opposed. Motion passes 6 to1. Miss blank in descent. Now,

Mr. President, my motion is to make the max duration on site equal to residential lots at 180 consecutive days. Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? I I opposed. Motion passed. Five to two. Miss Blankin, Miss Batton in descent. Any other sections, phrases, definitions, time lengths? I'd like to talk about art. Mr. Gleason.

Um, can can you explain category about what's considered art and how that affects this ordinance? Mr. Can you tell us where we're at? So, section 11. I didn't write it down.

Page 11 under exemptions. Number F, visual art. Works of visual art that one are not used to identify a business, product or service. Two, do not include logos, slogans, brands, excuse me, brand names or similar commercial elements. Three, are not illuminated. Visual art expressing personal, ideological, or political views are protected as non-commercial speech and are not regulated as signs under the ordinance, but must comply with dimensional and use restrictions as noted elsewhere in the zoning code. Is that Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

Sure. Is that typical what people are adding to their ordinances? Do you pull that from another uh town or city?

Um I just um wanted to that was one of the comments that our solicitor had um focused on as well and we did add that um while they are exempt they must comply with the dimensional and use restrictions as noted elsewhere in the code. Now elsewhere in the code would be article 4 dimensional regulation table that they still must comply in terms of height and setbacks. Um so I I think um the solicitor had mentioned well what about like a a gaggle of gnomes or something or a 20 foot Madonna? Um how do you regulate that? So that's why we added the dimensional and use regulations would be applicable. Um visual art is very subjective. Um so that's why it's exempt. Um what is there something specific that you're you're looking for?

Um well I think your explanation helps that my biggest thought was who determines whether it's art. I guess the more of a concern is everything can be art. It just has to fall into parameters that we're establishing based on size and quantity and things of that nature. Well, that's that's one thing a contentneutral u sign ordinance can y

can review is the the maximum size maximum size of a sign. So if you want to consider it, well if if this is a sign and somebody wants to put up a hundred of them, at least we can determine the the size and where the setbacks are and have the height of them. So if somebody wanted to buy one of those elephants and spray paint ray shell on the sides, it's been a long business that made it easy for me. Correct. They couldn't spray paint Ray Shell on the side, but they could put the elephant in their front yard. Yes. If it fell into a size requirement. Correct.

In fact, you're dealing with threedimensional as opposed to two-dimensional science. That's that's not an issue. Correct. Okay. All right. Feel comfortable with it? You're good with clarification? Yep. Miss Blank, you had something else?

Yes. Um, we're elected to represent our community as best I can. and I always try to is there a way I don't know to whom I'm directing this um in the spirit of community building that if we surpass x% of our population or 500 complaints on a particular sign as a community, it is then taken way.

No. So, I that's that's a very open-ended question, but I can give you the the easy answer, which is no. And so, that that you know, the the reason I say that so so abruptly is that um you know, the the First Amendment rights that were we're dancing around here are not um democratic rights. They're they're you know, you can't vote away somebody's civil rights. And that's essentially what that would be doing is, you know, you have a change.org petition that gets to 500. Doesn't matter if if somebody has a right, they have a right. So if a business sign if we had a 100% of the community say I'm not in favor of this of a particular graphic on a business sign.

I don't believe that would you know again very fact-based and and there are things that are prohibited uh that you know the first amendment does not cover for sure. Uh but it's not it can't be something driven by by a a popular vote. It's it's got to be um equally applied and based on some objective standard and criteria that you apply, you know, the same as as Mr. Gleason's question on art. You know, as long as you're consistent in in distinguishing between what you view as art and what you view as uh you know, under our definition of sign, which includes information, includes you know, different things like that. um you know, as long as you're consistent, you're okay. But but

even if that would be consistent throughout the town, well, it has to be consistent. The enforcement has to be consistent throughout the town. Um and but but the fact that 500 people don't like a particular sign can't drive the the code enforcement with written con like written complaints. No, I mean they are complaint driven. So, if they're violating the objective standards in the statute, one is enough to to, you know, draw that to the town's attention and and start an enforcement action, but it it can't be based on the content. And I think what you're suggesting is that No, not on the content, just the number of complaints that the town has received, but the complaints would be based on the content. Gotcha.

So, I think you're you're you're you're getting you're getting in the in the swamp one way or the other. Thank you for the clarification. SP. Sure. Um I just have a question as far as um signs on businesses that have, you know, had their signs up for many years. The changes um if we, you know, taking on these new changes, would they be like grandfathered in or That's that's the three-ear time frame. Is that okay? Yes. That you can make three years, two years. Three years to me is a comfortable window so that businesses don't have to have a and would they sizable expense to replace a sign potentially paperwork for that or is it just

it would come into effect? I don't we wouldn't I know Leah we wouldn't we would inform each individual okay business on an individual basis we wouldn't s we would do a mass mailing right right okay thank you m you know this when when I looked at this where where are the fines it refers to fines um refers to fines section uh that's a I was going to bring that It's at the end of this thing.

Why are you looking Miss Hitchen? There's it's it basically says um you you can appeal to the zoning board review and accordance in general. Excuse me. The wrong section there. If you have a violation that you fail to cure or appeal, which would be section 16,

uh D, no, not in D. CC. Uh, it talks about levy fines authorized by section 255-3100 of the code of ordinances. I could not find that. I think that was that was a copy paste error which we will fix. Can you show us where that is and what the fines look like? Is that of interest to you? Yeah, that's I mean some some of the things like under our plastic bag ordinance, it'll tell you if you don't adhere to it, the fine is X. Yep. This one you have to go outside the ordinance to see the fines.

And I think we should know what the fines look like. personally. We're going to have our zoning enforcement officer come up. Hi. Hi, Aaron. Hi. Zing enforcement officer. Uh fines are are issued by the court when we um issue a violation. There's they have a period to um to remedy the situation and if they don't then they get summoned to court and the court issues the fine. That's how our system works. I I think the question is is what are the levels of fines? The levels of fine are set by the court. We don't have a a set level of fine in our ordinance.

I think that's a that was what Leah said that was a typo carried over. So if the judge is having a particular bad day and doesn't like you, they could find you $1,000, but if they like you, it could be 10 bucks. The way the way I read it was no more than 30 days in jail finds no more than $1,000 per violation or both. Right. That's and that's that's pretty much it. Yeah, right. Okay. So, it's up to the discretion of the mun municipal court judge. Okay. Correct. In in the time that you've been here um three or four years now between the two of you, has there ever been a sign enforcement brought before the municipal court?

Uh no that we we've issued violations, but mostly come in compliance. They have come in compliance for the most part. Yeah. They've been assigned a fine and pay them. Is that what you're saying? Uh, no. They a bine is issued they have come into compliance. Okay. They've been I they've been told they have a violation. Okay. Thank you. And they fix they fix it. Correct. Correct. Very good. Hold on, Miss P. Miss Blank, I was just going to ask, do you need a motion to fix the typo? No. No. Okay. Section 255 of the town code, I believe, is um fees or fines. M

so do we have to also put something in um that it's at the discretion of the municipal court judge just to for more clarity if it if it can be so if if the fine can be you know from here or there should we say it's in the I don't know I mean, we could It's up It's I'd have to uh rely on our solicitor for that.

Our our preference um in the years that um Mr. Lindo and I have been here is to be business friendly and work work with the uh residents or the business um and not have to get to the the point of going to court. Okay.

But we're not saying No. Well, it it it's a broad interpretation of what the judge could potentially do for the town.

So, with this new ordinance, I know that how you've dealt with it in the past. Do you foresee the um the municipal courts getting more involved uh with with a new ordinance such as what we're presenting? I see that um the new ordinance is a great tool to have in our toolbox for businesses, residents that are asking for a specific um in terms of well what's the maximum size I can have? What what is required for a permit? What type of materials can I use? Um where can I locate the sign? Um, it doesn't pinpoint the things that most people want to see fixed, but it does include a time frame for immortization. Um, it is definitely an upgrade to the sign ordinance that we currently have. Is it perfect? No. But um Weston and Samson, our consultant, and Aaron and I did the best we could to um modernize and make the improvements we could to keep it content neutral.

Yeah, I think it's a great job. Any other corrections, changes, updates from the council? questions just clarification on can you just explain because I know it's going to come up down the road the concept of de facto signs the concept of de facto signs that might be a question for our solicitor all the way to the end what's what I'm looking I'm looking at

it has to be it has to be in context I think it has to do with um people people not complying not when you're not in compliance. That's that's just a catch all to to basically say if a sign it's it's distinguish between a temporary and a permanent sign. So a sign is up for however many days they put in there, but it's essentially no longer covered under the temporary sign provisions. It's it's a permanent sign. So we actually have to change that section as well because it's Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for catching that. Yeah. I'm not sure what the motion would be. No, no, it was just it just that it says 120 in this cumulative Well, it says cumulative days, so it has to be 180 consecutive days. Oh, I see what you mean, right?

In this section. Well, um, sorry. Can I just have 30 seconds to look at this? Um, read the two of them together. Yeah. Well, you know, I guess that's fine because yeah, the the those are the only two that have theund the 90 then and then the 120. The other ones are shorter period. So yeah, that would be the change we would need. Um, so it would change to any temporary sign that remains in place for more than 180 or cumulative orum cumulative that was an issue with the

Yeah, I mean I think I think if you were if you were to change that to 180 consecutive or 180 cumulative, you'd actually have a permanent a six-month window that would be enforceable. Okay, does that make sense? Would you like us to make that a motion to make that change? Explain that again if you would. So, so it's it's the deacto signage basically um would if you left the language the way it is, it would overrule the two amendments you made tonight um and bring it back to

it would take them out of the temporary category and and after 120 days, it would put them in the permanent category requiring permits and what have you, right? So if you were to change 16B sub A uh where it references 90 consecutive or 120 cumulative to 180 consecutive or 180 cumulative that will me now make this mesh with the changes you made tonight. Okay. So this would be somebody who has a grand opening sign up as well. Not just political signs and things like that. Any temporary sign. Okay.

Yeah. But if it but if it's there for a year, suddenly you're subject to the permanent signage requirements, getting a permit, whatever. So, we need a motion to change uh subsection B deacto permanent signage. Any temporary sign that remains in place for more than 180 consecutive days or more than 180 cumulative days within a 12-month period is deemed permanent sign. It must meet all the standards of permanent signs. Do we have a motion to make that change? So, moved. Second.

Thank you. All those in favor? I opposed. Motion passes 7 to zero. Any other adjustments or changes? Hearing none. Is there a motion to pass the ordinance as amended? So moved. Second.

One more question if Yes, Mr. Luc. Yes. Um, so the the last statement in the ordinance is that the ordinance will take effect upon passage. Um, I guess the only thing I would like to see is is a final copy. So, if I could change that verbiage that says based on a finalized copy signed by the council president and approved by the town council. Well, the just the changes see them all in black and white. If if you want to do that, the easiest would be if and this is I don't know how much time it will take you to do this, but can you have it done before Wednesday? Wednesday?

Yes. So, we can put it on the agenda for next Monday or do you want do you want the time to do it until like the first meeting of April? I will have it done by Wednesday. I I think that's doable. I would also ask though that the motion include that um that council and staff be allowed to make other edits, you know, administrative edits because I there were a couple of other items that were brought up tonight that weren't formal amendments, right? And I I'm still digging on that fine language. I want to make sure we're good on that, too. So So, do we want to pass it this evening? Do we if if we pass it this evening with the amendments, then we don't have to have another public hearing. Do we have to have another public hearing to make the final

No, you've had your public hearing. Um if if you want to see the cleaned up version before the vote, I think that's perfectly fine. You can continue it the continue this to the next meeting. Uh and as long as we get this noticed and up by Wednesday, we have a we have a meeting next No, that's what I mean by as long as it gets there by Wednesday, I don't see any problem voting on it as a technically Wednesday, but we usually get it done by Wednesday. Yeah, I'll be at that meeting. If it's not doable, we'll just do it from the first meeting of April. Is that okay with everybody if it doesn't happen overnight? Literally overnight. No, no pressure.

Mr. Pero and Miss Blank, would you remove your motions to approve it this evening or we'll approve it on Monday night? Remove your second. Resend first. Resend your second and he'll resend it. Resend my second. I'll resend my motion. Okay. So it's a motion to continue. Motion will be to place this for final adoption on Monday night. Some moved. Second. All those in favor? I oppose. Motion passes 7 to zero. And if Monday night rolls around and is not 100% ready for prime time, we'll just forward it to the next meeting. Everybody's comfortable with that. Motion to return. Second. All those in favor? I. I. O's.